run_alibaba_product_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful cost model (1 point per returned record), but omits the result format, how the 250-item cap interacts with the implicit pagination, and any auth/rate-limit context.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the cost note appended. Nothing is wasted, though the field list reads as slightly ambiguous output rather than input detail.

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 two-parameter search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it hints at returned fields and states the cost, yet omits return shape, ordering, and how results relate to successive search calls.

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%, documenting both keyword and count, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The listed fields (price, MOQ, etc.) are output attributes rather than parameters, so the description adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (Alibaba products) scoped by keyword, and enumerates the attributes surfaced (price, MOQ, supplier, certifications). It distinguishes itself well from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with run_alibaba_product (the singular detail tool).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. In a catalog with ~250 sibling marketplace tools and a near-identical run_alibaba_product, the description leaves the search-vs-detail decision entirely to inference.

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