Search products and price lists

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful result context: each product shows its lowest current price in Toman and how many shops sell it. It also discloses pagination via has_next and the important caveat that sort=cheapest may list accessories and manuals unless paired with min_price or a category.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then moves through usage, result shape, workflow, sibling routing, and pagination without redundant repetition. The extra length is justified by the ten-parameter surface and the need to route among nine siblings.

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 ten-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough return-shape context, pagination behavior, workflow guidance, and caveats for correct use. Combined with full schema coverage and clear annotations, no material gap remains for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all ten parameters, but the description still adds useful semantic guidance such as using brand_id and attributes from em_filters, category_id from em_categories, and leaving query empty to browse a category. It does not add much for page, limit, or price fields beyond the schema, but it meaningfully connects key filter parameters to the overall workflow.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: "Search Emalls ... for products" with price, category, brand, spec, and sort filters. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming em_filters, em_product, em_offers, em_compare, em_price_history, and em_categories.

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?

Explicitly says to use it first to find a product id or browse a category by price, including the exact empty-query plus category_id pattern. It gives a concrete workflow for the cheapest 8GB/256GB Samsung phone and names alternatives for specs, offers, comparison, price history, and category discovery.

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