willys_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does clarify that onlySwedish filters on verified Swedish labeling, not brand, which is a useful behavioral nuance. However, it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior, side effects, or response structure. Overall, minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the parameter nuance.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, with the main purpose first and a parameter clarification second. No wasted words, and it front-loads the essential purpose. It earns its place by being directly informative without fluff.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides only a minimal overview and a single parameter clarification. It leaves critical gaps, such as what query and sessionId are for, how pagination works, and what onlyBuyable does. For an agent to use this tool effectively, significantly more context is needed.

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 only 17% (only onlySwedish has a description). The description adds a clarification for onlySwedish (labels vs brand), which slightly extends the schema. But the other five parameters (query, sessionId, page, size, onlyBuyable) remain completely unexplained in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Sök' and resource 'produkter', clearly indicating this is a product search tool. It distinguishes from siblings like willys_search_suggestions and willys_find_cheapest by focusing on general product search. However, it doesn't elaborate on search scope or result format, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like willys_search_suggestions or willys_find_cheapest. The only extra info is about the onlySwedish parameter, which is a parameter clarification, not tool-selection guidance. There's no explicit 'use for X, not for Y'.

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