Find cheapest products

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that only two pages of 48 are read and that out-of-stock and low-rated items are dropped, which tells the agent about result coverage and filtering.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by behavior and parameter strategy. No filler sentences; every clause carries information.

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 read-only, idempotent search tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies filtering behavior, coverage limits, and param strategy. It does not sketch the shape of returned offer fields, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, a 3 is the baseline. The description goes further by explaining the tuning strategy (raise min_price when results are accessories, narrow via category_id), adding inter-parameter intent beyond the per-field schema text.

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?

Specifies a concrete verb and resource (list the cheapest in-stock offers for a query), plus ordering (cheapest first) and currency (Toman). The 'cheapest/in-stock' framing clearly separates it from the general bs_search sibling.

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?

Offers actionable conditional guidance: raise min_price when results are still accessories and narrow with category_id from bs_categories, which routes the agent to a sibling tool. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over bs_search, so it falls short of a full 5.

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