temu_goods_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: default site behavior, page maximum of 200, sample labeling when not fully paged, interpretation of inventory 0 as 'not counted', requirement to use server linkUrl for product links, and competition thresholds for similarNum. These go beyond simple read/write hints and are highly actionable.

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 long but information-dense; every sentence carries operational value. However, it is a single block of text without visual structure (bullets or sections), making it less scannable for an agent. Still, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and each statement earns its place.

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 large schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers default site behavior, sorting conventions, preset recipes, output link formatting, pagination/sampling, inventory caveats, and when to delegate to other tools. It gives an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly for a wide range of product research tasks.

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 single top-level `query` parameter has 0% schema coverage per context, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining how to select between keyword and catIds, which sort fields map to specific intents (daySold for hot sellers, onSaleTime for new products), and how to combine filter ranges for low-competition or new-store presets. It doesn't enumerate every min/max field but provides the critical semantic recipes beyond raw schema.

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 '搜索和筛选 Temu 商品' (search and filter Temu products) and enumerates concrete use cases (hot sellers, daily rankings, new products, low competition, new store products, big seller new products, price ranges, competitors) plus analysis fields. This clearly identifies the tool's verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mall search or image search.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: default site 48 and call site tool for other countries; choose keyword vs catIds based on intent; defines preset criteria (e.g., low-competition requires sold≥100, similarNum 1-10, sort by daySold); and explicitly says to call review search only when review evidence affects decisions. This is strong usage direction with alternatives.

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