Search Nagora listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that no API key is required, explains price currency presentation (display currency with XNO equivalent), and states the return structure (items array and total count). This goes beyond the schema and helps an agent set expectations, though it omits rate limits or pagination details.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then adds auth, currency, return shape, and an alternative tool pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: scope, auth, currency, return shape, and a pointer to get_listing. It doesn't explain all parameter interactions, but the schema fills that gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the search scope (full-text over active listings). This meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 performs full-text search over active listings on nagora.shop. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_listing, which is explicitly referenced for detail retrieval. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context: use search for discovery and get_listing for full detail before purchasing. It names an alternative explicitly, though it doesn't exhaustively enumerate when not to use search. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to choose correctly.

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