search_amazon

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it discloses no side effects ('no side effects beyond outgoing HTTP requests'), no auth requirements, network dependence, anti-bot throttling, and return behavior including empty list on block/no results. It also specifies the exact return shape and how missing fields are represented (empty strings or None). This is exceptionally transparent.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, operational context, return format, and failure behavior. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose, then adds necessary behavioral caveats, and ends with the output contract. No wasted words or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (live network scrape with variable results), and the description covers everything an agent needs to decide and execute: live scrape, no auth, no side effects, variability, exact return schema, empty list behavior, and blocking. The presence of the output shape in the description compensates for the lack of an explicit output schema in context. Completeness is high.

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%, and the schema already clearly documents both parameters (query and max_pages) with examples and defaults. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and no further param details are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scrape Amazon search results for a query and return a list of matching products.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (e.g., search_images, search_youtube) by naming Amazon as the target and defining the output. The scope is explicit 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 clear usage context: it is a live network scrape of Amazon's public search pages with no login/API key, and mentions that results vary by region/availability and may be affected by throttling. It implies when to use the tool (Amazon product searches) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions, matching a 4.

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