run_wayfair_products_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context by enumerating returned fields and disclosing the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, pagination depth, or result caps beyond the schema's max_items.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then return shape, then cost. Every sentence earns its place, though the return-field list is somewhat long for a definition without an output schema.

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 keyword-search tool with full parameter coverage and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return fields, and pricing. The notable gap is the absence of routing guidance versus the many sibling product-search tools, but the core invocation information is present.

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 keyword, max_items (up to 300) and start_page are already documented inline. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (Search) plus resource (Wayfair products) and the mechanism (by keyword), which cleanly separates it from the retrieval-oriented sibling run_wayfair_products. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the verb+scope is unambiguous.

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 'by keyword' and the search nature, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion relative to alternatives like run_wayfair_products or other marketplace search tools. The agent must infer the selection criteria.

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