Lamoda Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the additional behavioral detail is valuable: rendering in the operator's Chrome, TransportDownError on CDP/nav failures, ParserDriftError on zero SKUs, and the price_rub semantics. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then short Return Format and Error Format sections. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter search tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the response shape and the key failure modes. It is sufficient for invocation, though the missing usage guidance is a gap captured in the usage dimension.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter, query, including length constraints and an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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?

The description opens with 'Search Lamoda', a specific verb and resource, and the title/name reinforce the same scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like wb_search or ozon_search, nor from lamoda_card, but the intended operation is unmistakable.

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 guidance on when to use lamoda_search versus lamoda_card, lamoda_selfcheck, or the other marketplace search tools. The phrase 'discovery is blocked tier 1' hints at a constraint but does not explain when this tool should be selected over alternatives.

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