Search phones by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: this is an autocomplete-style lookup returning up to about 20 ids rather than full records, which implies the agent must chain follow-up calls. It stops short of saying how ambiguity or zero results are handled.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, what to call next, and which sibling to use instead. The scoping and result-limit information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter lookup without an output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the return shape (ids, ~20 max) and the downstream tools. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly in a chain is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the query string with English/Persian examples and length bounds. The description adds little beyond confirming name-based matching; the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (find), resource (phones, tablets, smartwatches), source (Mobile.ir), and output (ids), plus a result-count bound. It also names the sibling that handles the other case (mi_find), so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Explicit sequencing: call this first when the user names a model, then mi_phone for specs or mi_shop_prices for prices. It also gives an exclusion with a named alternative — mi_find for price range, brand, or camera filters — so there is no ambiguity about when not to use it.

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