search_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does mention that it returns specific fields (titles, prices, ratings, sales counts, stores, product URLs), which is good. But it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-mutating, nor does it describe potential side effects or error behavior. For a search tool, read-only is implied but not stated.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. Every clause adds value: the primary purpose, supported filters, return fields, and alternative tool guidance. It is well structured 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 the tool's complexity (11 optional parameters, no output schema), the description conveys everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it does, what it returns, and when to choose a different tool. References to get_category_tree and the alternative search tools complete the contextual picture.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all 11 parameters, and the description adds extra clarification: city names must match Toco's spelling (e.g., 'Kota Bandung'), category and department IDs come from get_category_tree, and omitting query allows browsing by filters. This goes beyond the schema and enriches parameter understanding.

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 the tool searches for buyable products on the Toco marketplace and differentiates it from adjacent tools like search_vehicles and search_properties by specifying they handle classified ads. The verb 'search' and resource 'products' are explicit.

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 gives explicit guidance for when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For cars, motorbikes, or property use search_vehicles / search_properties instead'. It also hints at using get_category_tree for category and department IDs, and clarifies that fields like condition and query can be omitted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_search_suggestions, though the difference is implied.

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