search_buyking_semantic

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include country codes and that the tool returns real sale data, implying a read-only search operation. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements, but for a search tool these are less critical. The description adds context beyond the schema but lacks deep behavioral detail.

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 concise, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a behavioral instruction. Each sentence contributes value without redundancy. Slightly more structured formatting (e.g., separate usage and note) could improve scannability, but it's effective as is.

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 search tool with 4 documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it searches, how to invoke it, and that results include country codes. It doesn't describe result format or pagination, but these are often inferred. It sufficiently equips an agent to call the tool correctly in the intended scenario.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (keyword, sort, category, platform) are already documented with usage guidance. The description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema; it merely reinforces the keyword extraction guidance ('명사 위주로 핵심만 추출') which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (semantic search), the resource (Saleplaza's global hot deals), and the scope (borderless). It explicitly distinguishes from country-specific siblings by noting '국경 없이' and that country codes are shown on results, implying this is the general tool. The '가장 먼저 호출' instruction further sets it apart.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: '사용자가 특정 국가를 지정하지 않은 일반적인 쇼핑 검색에 가장 먼저 이 도구를 호출하세요.' It also instructs to use the tool to fetch real data instead of fabricating answers. However, it doesn't explicitly name the country-specific siblings as alternatives for when a country is specified, though the sibling names make that obvious.

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