Search products

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: results arrive as paginated cards priced in Toman, and adjacent pages can repeat products (a real dedup hazard for an agent paging through results). It also supplies the canonical product URL pattern. It stops short of rate limits or total-result availability, so not a full 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape before the sibling routing. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema, open-world search tool, the description covers action, return format, routing and the pagination duplication caveat, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain (no mention of how to detect the last page or of rate limits), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 100% and all 11 parameters carry inline descriptions with defaults, ranges and examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the general note that filters and sort run server-side, and restates Toman pricing which is already in max_price/min_price. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Basalam products') plus the concrete return shape ('a page of cards with prices in Toman'), and explicitly separates itself from three siblings by name. An agent can distinguish it from bs_find_cheapest, bs_product and bs_vendor_products without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the primary use case ('browsing a product type') with the note that filters and sort are applied server-side, then names the alternative for each neighbouring intent — ranking by price (bs_find_cheapest), single product (bs_product), single shop catalog (bs_vendor_products). Routing conditions are explicit rather than inferred.

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