Search FAQ

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds operational behavior: how to phrase queries ('short single words match best') and how to interpret an empty result set, which the annotations cannot convey. It does not discuss rate limits or result counts, keeping it 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by when-to-use and the empty-result fallback. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the single required parameter is fully covered by schema plus description. Usage conditions and the failure-mode alternative are both present, making the definition self-sufficient.

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 already documents the single 'query' parameter including its Persian-language examples. The description adds real matching semantics beyond that ('short single words match best'), which the schema does not state.

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 the help-center FAQ) and names the return shape (matching questions with plain-text answers). This is clearly distinguishable from the product-oriented siblings like tl_search and tl_product 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?

Gives an explicit use case (policy questions: installments, delivery, returns, warranty, invoices) and a concrete fallback path ('an empty list means try another word or tl_store_info'), naming the alternative sibling by name. 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.