search_listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output format (JSON with title, price, URL, location, date) and explains parameter defaults (page default 1, category optional). It also provides example queries to illustrate expected inputs. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or potential limitations, which would make it more transparent. The return format is explicitly stated, so this is above average.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections, and the main purpose is stated first. It is concise for the information provided, though it contains duplicate text in Mongolian and English, which increases length. Every sentence adds value (purpose, parameters, return format), so it earns a 4.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for a search tool: what it does, all parameters, and the return format. An output schema exists, so explaining return values in detail is not necessary. It lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., no results, pagination behavior) and does not differentiate from siblings, but for a moderate-complexity tool with clear parameter documentation, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. For each parameter (query, category, page), the description provides meaningful semantics: query is the search term with examples, category includes an explicit list of valid keys, and page indicates the page number with default. This goes far beyond the schema's bare field names and types.

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's function: 'Search unegui.mn for listings matching a query.' It specifies the resource (unegui.mn) and action (search), and the examples ('Toyota Prius', '2 өрөө орон сууц') make the use case clear. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_categories or get_recent_listings, which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use this tool: when searching listings by a keyword query. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., using browse_category to explore categories or get_recent_listings for latest posts). Sibling tools are present, but no comparison or guidance is provided. This is a clear but not explicit usage context.

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