Search Rakuten Ichiba Products

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

Annotations already confirm read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output: 'Returns a paginated list of items with prices, review stats, images, and direct purchase URLs.' This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't disclose rate limits or authentication needs.

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?

Extremely concise: two short paragraphs (English and Japanese) with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, and no superfluous information is present.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, filtering, sorting, and response contents. It mentions pagination and key fields, but lacks details on error behavior or advanced usage. Adequate for most use cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides; it summarizes the supported features (price range, sorting, genre/shop restriction) but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters.

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 the tool's purpose explicitly: 'Search products on Rakuten Ichiba by keyword.' It clearly specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'Rakuten Ichiba products.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ichiba_item_ranking (rankings) and ichiba_genre_search (genre browsing) by focusing on general keyword search with filtering and sorting.

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?

Implies usage context for general product search with keyword, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like ichiba_product_search or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the context is clear from the description.

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