search_finn

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return behavior (up to ~50 SearchResult entries, empty list valid), unsupported backend (cars_new), and extra URL-query parameters for filters. This is thorough for behavioral expectations.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two short paragraphs front-loading the purpose, then details on parameters and return behavior. No redundant sentences; every line adds value.

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?

Given the tool complexity (4 params, output schema), the description covers essentials: verticals, query, filters, return limits, and unsupported items. Missing page parameter explanation is minor, and output schema details are not needed since it exists separately. Adequate for informed use.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning to vertical (expands enum with descriptions), query (free-text), and filters (dict example). However, it omits the 'page' parameter entirely. Thus partial coverage, baseline 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 'Search finn.no within a vertical', specifying the verb (search) and resource (finn.no within a vertical). It lists all vertical options (bap, homes, lettings, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools (get_listing, save_search, etc.) which have different purposes.

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 implies usage through naming and vertical specification, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'use for general search; use get_listing for a single item'). No exclusions or 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.