rozetka_saved_search_run

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 not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether the saved search criteria are re-executed against live data, or what the invocation returns, leaving the agent to guess at side effects and output.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence that wastes nothing, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient structure.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain the id's provenance and what a successful run returns.

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 0% and the single parameter 'id' is undocumented. The phrase 'locally saved' hints that id refers to a stored search, but it never says where the id comes from (presumably rozetka_saved_search_list) or what format it takes.

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 gives a specific verb (Run) and resource (a locally saved Rozetka search), which is enough to place it against siblings like rozetka_saved_search_create/delete/list. It does not, however, spell out what 'running' produces (a product result set vs. re-persisting the query).

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 and no mention of the alternative tools. An agent is left to infer that this is the execution counterpart to saved_search_create/list and that plain rozetka_search_products exists for ad-hoc queries.

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