n11_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the return fields (title, price in TRY, list price, brand, SKU, URL, image, stock), the limit range, and 1-based pagination. It stops short of noting rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search that gap is minor.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with each clause covering a parameter or the return shape. Formatting is a bit run-together but no sentence is wasted.

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 4-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers query syntax, sorting, pagination and return fields. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, and the description compensates thoroughly: it explains query accepts Turkish or ASCII with examples, enumerates the sort values with their meanings (relevance default, price_asc, price_desc), and specifies limit 1..24 and page as 1-based. This is meaningfully more than the bare schema offers.

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 n11.com products by keyword.' It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (price stats, reviews, detail, categories), so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of a search tool, but the description never says when to prefer this over siblings like n11_product_detail or n11_list_categories, nor does it state prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing.

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