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 them: in-stock items are ranked first, and the result set also contains matching categories (usable as ids for mk_browse) plus brand/tag pages. It does not discuss rate limits or result-size caps, so it stops short of a 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the returned fields in the first sentence, then routing rules in the second paragraph. Dense but every clause carries information; the sibling-routing list is the longest part and is justified by the number of overlapping 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?

With a full-coverage schema, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to supply routing and ordering semantics — which it does completely. An agent can select and call this tool without consulting any other definition.

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, limit, query and in_stock_only are already documented, including the Persian/English keyword examples and the empty-page semantics. The description reinforces the in-stock ordering but adds no new syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search MasterKala products by keyword') and names the returned fields (price, discount, stock), which is more than the title 'Search products' conveys. It is immediately distinguishable from mk_browse (category sorting/filtering) and mk_product (single-product details).

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 an explicit entry-point rule ('Use first for "price of X" / "do you have X"') and then routes to three named alternatives with the condition that selects each: mk_find_cheapest for the cheapest in-stock match, mk_browse for sorting/filtering a category, mk_product for full details of one product. Nothing is left to inference.

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