Buscar productos de Plaza Vea

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

The description adds a behavioral caveat beyond the annotations: price and stock are revalidated when opening Plaza Vea, indicating data might be stale. This supplements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already provided.

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 a single, concise sentence that covers the core functionality without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more explicit about the return type.

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 that some parameters are not described and the output schema is not referenced, the description leaves some gaps. However, the core search behavior and the revalidation note provide enough context for typical usage, making it moderately complete.

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 description clarifies the semantics for 'name' (partial match) and 'brand' (exact match), and mentions sorting by price minimum. However, it does not explain limit, only_available, or the sort enum values, which remain inferred from context.

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 the tool searches the public catalog by partial name and exact brand, and supports sorting. It distinguishes from siblings like get_product by focusing on catalog search, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_brands or get_product. It only explains what it does, leaving the selection criteria implicit.

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