Search products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavioral traits, but it only states a basic search operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior via limit/offset, sorting choices, read-only safety, or any output characteristics. The description merely restates the tool's headline action without adding context.

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 a single clean sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It could benefit from slightly more structure or examples, but it remains appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description leaves out important operational context: pagination semantics, sorting options, response shape, and how this search relates to sibling tools like get_product or get_categories. An agent must rely entirely on the schema and parameter names to understand calling conventions.

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?

Input-schema descriptions already explain every parameter in detail (e.g., 'Words to search for', 'Number of products to return'). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond highlighting 'text query' and 'optional category'.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Search'), the target ('the eBay catalog'), the result ('products'), and the primary filtering inputs ('text query' and 'optional category'). The verb–resource pairing is specific and easily distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_product (single product lookup) and get_categories.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the listed siblings (e.g., get_product for a known ID, get_categories for browsing). No exclusion conditions or alternative mentions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the general wording alone.

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