run_rakuten_items_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 usefully adds that results are live and that billing is 1 point per returned record, but it does not describe authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or the shape of returned records.

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 two compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no wasted language. The pricing note is short and operationally relevant.

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 schema fully covers the eight parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the search purpose and cost but omits what a returned record contains, how pagination behaves, and when to prefer this over related Rakuten tools.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description names the major filter categories (sort, condition, price range, genre) but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching live Rakuten Ichiba items by keyword, with filters named. This clearly separates it from a detail lookup, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as run_rakuten_items or run_rakuten_shops_items, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase "Search live Rakuten Ichiba items by keyword" implies the tool is for keyword-based item discovery and supplies some filter context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus run_rakuten_items or run_rakuten_shops_items, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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