search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuine behaviors: results are compact and must be enriched via get_item, and include_shipping only applies to the first 40 results — a non-obvious truncation the schema would never reveal. It says nothing about pagination behavior, empty-result handling, auth requirements, or rate limits, which is a meaningful gap for a 13-parameter tool with zero 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct load (purpose, ID sourcing, result shape, shipping caveat), with the core purpose front-loaded. The 'Envío desde' quoted term is slightly cryptic without locale context, but nothing is padded or restated.

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?

For a 13-parameter, zero-required, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose, ID sourcing, and result handling but leaves the entire pagination and sorting surface (pages, per_page, order) and the price-range and condition filters unexplained. Adequate to invoke it in the common case, not complete enough to use it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it partially does, explaining the provenance and format of catalog_ids, brand_ids, size_ids, color_ids, attributes, and include_shipping. However, text, order, pages, per_page, price_from, price_to, and conditions get no mention at all, leaving over half the parameters to inference from bare titles.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search listings') and immediately differentiates itself from lookups: 'Compact results; use get_item for details.' An agent can tell it apart from search_filters, list_categories, and get_item without opening any schema. It stops short of 5 only because the searchable domain (marketplace listings vs. categories vs. users) isn't spelled out beyond the noun.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisite routing: catalog_ids come from list_categories, brand/size/color ids and attribute codes from search_filters, and details require get_item. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to named siblings. It lacks an explicit exclusion case (e.g., when to prefer suggest or similar_items), so it falls short of 5.

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