Google Shopping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful economic context ('Credit cost: 1 credit per call') and confirms results come from an external API, but says nothing about result volume, pagination limits, or failure 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource name and immediately followed by the operation and output shape; the cost note is a useful trailing tag. The opening 'Google Shopping.' merely restates the title and title annotation, so it is near-redundant but harmless.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of stating what comes back (prices, ratings, merchant data), and the credit cost covers the main non-obvious operational concern. Pagination semantics and typical result counts remain unstated, which is a modest gap for an 11-parameter tool whose schema is otherwise fully documented.

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 100% with all 11 parameters individually documented, including gl, hl, cr, lr, uule, location, fields, and page. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Scrape Google Shopping results') plus the payload shape ('structured product listings with prices, ratings, and merchant data'). That makes it clearly a product-listing search, distinguishable from generic siblings like google_search or google_images, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of when a plain google_search would suffice, and no mention of the pagination or query-scoping conditions under which this tool is appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the phrase 'Google Shopping'.

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