Search products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: sponsored items are removed from results, and matches also yield category ids and brand slugs. It stops short of describing pagination cost or rate limits, but the added filtering/result behavior is meaningful.

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 the returned fields, followed by a compact routing block of sibling alternatives. Dense but every clause carries routing or result information; only the parenthetical's coupling of categories to kh_browse is mildly tucked away.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values, yet it still signals what matches include. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and explicit sibling routing, the definition is essentially complete; only pagination/volume expectations are left implicit.

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 page, sort, limit, query, min/max_price and in_stock_only are all documented in the schema (including units in Toman and enum meanings). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Search Khanoumi products by keyword') and enumerates what each match returns: price, discount, stock, with sponsored items removed. It also names the sibling tools it is not (kh_find_cheapest, kh_filters, kh_product), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a 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?

It explicitly routes the agent: 'Use first for "price of X" / "do you have X"', then maps alternatives to their conditions ('For the cheapest in-stock match use kh_find_cheapest', 'to filter by skin type, color or brand use kh_filters + kh_browse', 'shades, sellers and per-shade prices: kh_product'). Both the primary case and the exclusions are spelled out.

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