search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses pagination semantics (limit max 50, offset paging), the return shape (total count plus a compact list with named fields), and the site-scoping behavior. It lacks only non-essential operational details like rate limits or auth requirements.

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?

Dense but zero waste: purpose, use cases, the sibling exclusion, pagination mechanics, and the return shape in three front-loaded sentences. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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 read-only search tool with six fully documented params and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces — return fields and pagination behavior — so an agent can call it and interpret results correctly without further reference.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema (limit range, query example, offset, category id source, price bounds). The description largely restates the limit/offset mechanics rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search public listings on Mercado Livre') with scope (configured site, default MLB). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_my_items by clarifying it searches the whole marketplace, not the seller's own listings.

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?

Names concrete use cases (competitor research, market prices, finding item/category ids) and gives an explicit exclusion with the alternative ('NOT the seller's own listings — use get_my_items for that'). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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