Search groceries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value beyond that: 'Browsing a category also returns its sub-categories' and the category_code-over-query precedence rule. It stops short of describing no-argument behavior or result/pagination traits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and kept to three short, information-dense statements with no filler. The domain parenthetical and the two follow-up sentences each carry distinct guidance. Slightly more than strictly needed, but nothing that wastes the reader's time.

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 7-parameter search tool the description covers purpose, the key parameter interaction, and an alternative route. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is sibling routing (dk_search/dk_categories), which is not addressed.

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%, so the schema documents each parameter and the baseline is 3. The description adds interaction semantics the schema lacks: 'category_code takes precedence over query' and that category browsing returns sub-categories. This is real added meaning above the field-level docs.

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 states a specific verb pair (search/browse) and a precisely scoped resource: 'Digikala Fresh (the supermarket: dairy, groceries, drinks, hygiene).' The parenthetical domain listing distinguishes it functionally from general product search, but it never names dk_search or dk_category_products explicitly, so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 a clear use context (grocery/supermarket products) and an explicit alternative for a sub-case: 'For grocery discounts use dk_deals(store='supermarket').' The category-vs-query precedence rule further guides invocation. However, the primary alternative dk_search is not mentioned, so exclusions for general queries are incomplete.

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