Search Vinted

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds the useful analogy 'exactly like the site search box' and implies real-time data ('currently on sale'), but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or result structure beyond what annotations provide. This is decent but not rich behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Searches the Vinted catalogue'), and every clause earns its place—purpose, usage context, and sibling alternative. No fluff or redundancy.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the core purpose and the key distinction from a sibling. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination or filtering options, but those are visible in the schema. For a search tool, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though a note about result format would make it 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 70%, which is high, so the description needn't compensate for missing parameter docs. The description doesn't mention any parameters, but the schema already covers most of them (query, page, sortBy, country, perPage, brandIds, catalogIds). The schema handles parameter semantics; the description adds no extra value here.

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 clearly states 'Searches the Vinted catalogue, exactly like the site search box', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'search_similar_items' by noting the alternative for pricing, so it explicitly differentiates its purpose.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use it to look at what is currently on sale for a given query.' It also gives an exclusion/alternative: 'For pricing a specific item, prefer search_similar_items, which filters out results that are not really comparable.' This is clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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