market_search_by_category

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety. The description adds only a validation constraint (nonempty category filter, explicit location/depots) and no additional runtime behavior such as default scope, empty-result handling, or matching semantics. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause carries useful information: search type, accepted category levels, language, and hard prerequisites.

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?

Despite an output schema and safe annotations, this is a 16-parameter search endpoint with nested objects; a 22-word description is under-specified. It omits what entity is returned, how valid category names are obtained, and how this relates to market_search_products or market_get_categories.

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 44%, and the description adds meaning for the category parameters (Turkish names from the category tree) and emphasizes location/depots. However, many remaining optional parameters (brand, market_names, offer_price, refined_*) have no schema or description coverage, so the text only partially compensates for the gap.

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 names a specific action ('Search') and the distinguishing input ('menu_category, main_category or sub_category Turkish names from the category tree'), and the 'at least one nonempty category filter' constraint separates it from a general product search. It does not explicitly state the returned resource (products vs offers), so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

It clearly states the core prerequisites: at least one nonempty category filter and explicit location/depots. This prevents invalid calls, but it does not name sibling tools such as market_search_products or market_get_categories or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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