Search HKTVmall

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: batch size, lean candidates with listed fields, no automatic selection, supermarket-to-marketplace fallback, total count semantics, max_price enforcement by HKTVmall, and URL linking guidance. It also warns that English search is weaker than Chinese. There is no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core action and result contract, then adds fallback and language guidance. Most sentences carry operational value, and the density is justified by the search and fallback behavior it exposes.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not spell out return fields, yet it still names candidate fields and URL usage. With 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is complete for an open-world search tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all top-level parameters and query fields. The description reinforces multi-item list size and English/Chinese input and notes that max_price_cents is enforced by HKTVmall, but it omits brand filter details 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Search HKTVmall") and a clear scope: one or many items in one call, up to 25 shopping-list entries. It does not explicitly distinguish this search tool from siblings such as hktv_get_products or hktv_show_products, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

It gives clear usage context: pass the whole shopping list, supermarket zone is the default with widening to the marketplace, and re-search in Chinese if English results look off. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this search tool, so alternatives are left implicit.

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