search_my_products

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses that matching covers both product name and store name, and the search framing implies a non-mutating read. It does not state result ordering, limits, or how partial matches behave, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 tool purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by example phrasings that earn their space by helping intent matching. The trailing '需要提供 keyword' line is slightly redundant with the required-field schema but is minor.

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 one-parameter read/search tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, matching scope, and trigger phrasings — enough to call it correctly. Result cardinality and ranking behavior are the only notable omissions, and the output schema partly covers those.

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 parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that 'keyword' is the search term and that it matches against product name or store name. No format, length, or encoding constraints are given, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 states a specific verb ('按关键词搜索') and a precisely scoped resource ('用户的监控列表中'的商品), and clarifies the match fields (product name or shop name). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_monitor_list (which enumerates rather than keyword-filters), but never names that alternative.

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 list of example user phrasings ('搜一下我监控里有没有 AirPods', 'Samsung 相关的商品有几个在监控') gives concrete context for when this tool is the right pick over enumerating the monitor list. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative tool.

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