search_newegg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility and does an excellent job. It discloses live scraping, outbound network access, the return of an empty list on failure, and explicitly labels the operation as read-only with no side effects beyond HTTP requests. This goes well beyond a basic statement of purpose.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second adds essential behavioral caveats. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 has an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, so the description need not repeat field details. It adds critical context about network dependency, failure modes, and side effects, making the description complete enough for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; the schema itself fully explains query and max_pages meaning and defaults.

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 specifies the action ('Search Newegg'), the domain ('electronics and computer hardware'), and the output shape (list of product dicts with fields). It distinguishes from siblings like search_amazon and search_ikea by naming the specific retailer and product scope.

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 sets clear context for when to use the tool: searching Newegg. It mentions the requirement for outbound internet access and the fallback behavior (empty list on no match), which implies constraints. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative search tools or state when not to use it.

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