etsy_search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it is thin: it implies a read-only search but never states that results are paginated, what a response looks like, or any defaults. More seriously, it claims filtering by 'location' while no location parameter exists in the schema — a misleading capability that could cause an agent to expect or pass unsupported arguments.

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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and the capability scope compressed into a compact second sentence. Every clause 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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leans on the schema for sort and pagination semantics — which works because schema coverage is 100%. Clear gaps remain: no description of the return shape, the misleading location reference, and no explicit acknowledgment of pagination behavior via the page parameter. Adequate but with evident gaps.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds marginal value by grouping filters into conceptual categories (category, price range) that map to schema parameters, but it also introduces a phantom 'location' filter with no corresponding property, which could mislead an agent into passing an invalid argument. Net effect is baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Search for products on Etsy' — with a scope no sibling shares. The closest sibling, etsy_get_item_details, targets a known item rather than discovery, so an agent can route to this tool confidently without ambiguity.

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 implies use for product discovery and lists filtering capabilities, giving the agent a sense of when it is useful. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives like etsy_get_item_details (known-item lookup) or states exclusions. Usage context is inferable from sibling names but not articulated.

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