pdd_search

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the single-use limitation, the need to restart the server, the use of BrowserLock for concurrency, token expiry, and cookie export requirements. This is highly transparent and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, covering prerequisites, limitations, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise by consolidating some technical details. Overall, it strikes a good balance between completeness and readability.

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 tool's high complexity (single-use, cookie dependencies, concurrency), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, its limitations, prerequisites, and failure modes. An output schema exists (not shown) which likely covers return values, so the description does not need to explain those. The tool is fully contextualized for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add explicit parameter descriptions beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear (keyword required, limit optional with default). No additional context is provided for parameters, but none is strictly necessary given the schema's completeness.

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 '搜索拼多多商品' (search Pinduoduo products), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'pdd_product_detail' by focusing on search rather than detail retrieval. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 explicitly states prerequisites (Chrome + PDD cookie with specific tokens), a severe limitation (one search per session), and the required action to reset (restart MCP server). It also explains the underlying mechanism (Chrome CDP + iPhone UA) and provides cookie file location. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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