search_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool uses a browser path and is designed for anti-risk-control, which gives some sense of its operational nature. However, it does not mention whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single concise sentence with a parenthetical qualifier, containing no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the parenthetical adds essential context efficiently. Every word contributes value.

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 tool has an output schema, so return value documentation is partially covered. However, the description lacks critical context about pagination behavior, how the limit parameter works, or any constraints on search queries. It is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves clear gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'query' or 'limit' parameters at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema field names and default value, so it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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: '搜索闲鱼商品' (search Xianyu products), using a specific verb and resource. It also adds contextual distinction with '（浏览器路径，抗风控）' (browser path, anti-risk-control), which differentiates it from potential API-based siblings like item_list. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, so it does not fully distinguish from siblings.

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 parenthetical '（浏览器路径，抗风控）' implies that this tool is used when a browser-based, risk-control-resistant search is needed, suggesting a specific scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as item_list or category_recommend, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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