Megamarket Search

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

The description provides substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it details the exact return format (MegamarketSearchResponse with fields status, query, tier_used, count, total_count, items, meta), explains the price_rub behavior (None when absent, never 0), and documents error formats (TransportDownError, ParserDriftError). This goes beyond the read-only and idempotent hints from annotations, offering valuable transparency about operational 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?

The description is well-structured with clear headings for the main purpose, return format, and error format. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded with the core description, and every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), and the description covers the purpose, return structure, and error cases. Given the annotations and output schema presence, the description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results. It even specifies the execution environment (inside the operator's Chrome) which may be relevant for the agent's decision-making.

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?

The input schema fully covers the single parameter 'query' with a description and length constraints, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, which places it at the baseline score of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the Megamarket catalog via the mobile API' using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Megamarket catalog'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like megamarket_card and other marketplace searches by explicitly naming Magamarket as the target.

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?

The description gives a clear context for when to use this tool: when searching the Megamarket catalog. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or recommend other tools for different scenarios (e.g., using megamarket_card for detailed product info). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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