Lamoda Search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description goes meaningfully further: it names the concrete failure modes (challenge_required on a visible challenge, TransportDownError on CDP/nav failures, ParserDriftError on zero-SKU renders) and the Chrome-rendering dependency. It stops short of stating auth, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then clearly sectioned Return Format and Error Format blocks. Each sentence carries information; the only minor waste is re-listing the return envelope despite an output schema existing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter search with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the operation, the execution mechanism, the response shape, and the error taxonomy — enough for correct invocation. The missing piece is routing guidance versus the many sibling search tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (query) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema supplying the format example ('кроссовки nike'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about query syntax, locale, or length limits beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("Search Lamoda") and adds execution context — it runs through the operator's Chrome. It is clearly distinguishable from non-search siblings by name, but it never differentiates itself from sibling searches (wb_search, ozon_search, etc.) or from lamoda_card, so the agent must infer the routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer lamoda_card or another marketplace search. The phrase "discovery is blocked tier 1" hints at an internal tier constraint but is unexplained and does not tell the agent which conditions select this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.