Search Items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add one valuable trait: the data is public and readable by any authenticated profile regardless of country. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or rate/permission limits that a search tool would benefit from disclosing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded ahead of the examples, and the parenthetical about public data is worth its words. The bulleted example block is well-structured; the only slight drag is the length of the access note.

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 return values need not be explained, and the nested schema documents the query parameters. For a no-annotation tool the description covers access semantics and realistic invocations, though it omits pagination guidance and any note on which sibling to prefer for owned-listing or category browsing.

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?

Reported coverage is 0%, though the nested schema fields do carry their own descriptions. The description compensates only partially, demonstrating query, site_id, and price_max usage in examples while leaving condition, category_id, offset, and account undiscussed. The examples are useful but not a full substitute.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search for products on MercadoLibre') and adds the scoping detail 'across a site', so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not contrast itself against siblings like list_my_items or list_categories, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 three worked examples ('Find iPhone 15 in Argentina' → query + site_id, price-constrained search, laptops in Brazil) make the intended invocation context very concrete. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing to an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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