Search DSers Product Pool

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: pagination details (use search_after for next page, results may overlap between pages requiring deduplication by product_id), response truncation (truncated_from field for image search), and input validation (empty keywords rejected). No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with core functionality (search for import) and efficiently covers key points like pagination, integration, and limitations in clear sentences. It could be slightly more concise by avoiding minor repetition (e.g., 'import_url' mentioned multiple times), but overall it's well-structured with zero waste.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, usage flow, pagination, deduplication, truncation, and input validation. It effectively compensates for the lack of output schema by describing response fields like import_url, search_after, and truncated_from.

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 the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, such as noting keyword and image_url are mutually exclusive (implied in schema) and that image_url takes priority. It doesn't provide additional syntax or format details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 DSers product pool (AliExpress supplier catalog) for products to import, specifying it can search by keyword or image URL. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning direct integration with dsers_product_import via the import_url field, unlike other tools like dsers_my_products or dsers_store_discover.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this tool to find products for import, then use dsers_product_import with the import_url, followed by dsers_import_list and dsers_store_push. It distinguishes from alternatives by noting results are for direct import via dsers_product_import, and it specifies when not to use it (empty/whitespace-only keywords are rejected).

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