run_vinted_products_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add two useful facts beyond structured data: results are 'live' and each returned record costs 1 point. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, auth/permission needs, or what happens when max_items/start_page interact, which matters for a 14-parameter tool.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core purpose and scope are front-loaded before the filter enumeration and cost note. Every clause carries information.

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 14-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the what and the cost but leaves gaps: no return-shape or pagination explanation and no hint on how to obtain the numeric filter IDs. It is adequate but not complete.

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 schema already documents all 14 parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only a thematic list of filter families (category, brand, size, condition, color, material, price) and does not explain the opaque numeric ID formats (brand_ids, catalog_ids, status_ids) that an agent must source elsewhere.

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 (Search) plus resource (live Vinted items) and enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is distinguishable from the Vinted siblings (run_vinted_users, run_vinted_users_items) by being keyword-driven, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them, keeping it short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferable to run_vinted_users_items or the other marketplace item-search tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from 'Search live Vinted items by keyword'.

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