Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context (ad card fields, total count, paging info), though an output schema exists and duplicates much of that. Nothing is contradicted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the return contents. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

With 9 optional params and an output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what is searched and what comes back, including paging. Minor gaps remain around sorting semantics and the dependency on get_filters for filter ids, but the schema compensates for most of that.

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 78%, so the schema largely documents parameters on its own. The description mentions text, category and filters but adds no syntax, default, or interactive guidance beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search 999.md ads') and enumerates the search dimensions (text, category, filters), which maps cleanly onto the query/category/filters params. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like seller_ads or get_ad, so it lands below 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_ad for a single listing or get_filters for obtaining filter ids. The agent must infer the tool's place in the workflow.

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