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: the response also carries top matching categories and brands with filter codes, and those codes are meant to be fed back into category_code/brand_codes. It does not mention result caps or rate limits, but that is minor for a read-only search.

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 in one sentence, then a compact paragraph on the returned filter codes and the sibling alternatives. No filler, though the middle sentence about passing codes back is slightly run-on and could be split for clarity.

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, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety, so the description's remaining job is routing and the filter-code round trip — both handled. Only the omission of any note on pagination depth or result volume keeps it from a 5.

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 all nine parameters are documented in detail (units in Toman, enum semantics, page/sort interaction), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of category_code and brand_codes largely restates what the schema already says, adding only the 'phones, not phone cases' nuance that also appears in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Search Technolife products') and immediately scopes what the result contains: prices, discount, stock, rating. It also names the two siblings it must not be confused with (tl_find_cheapest, tl_product), so an agent can discriminate 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?

Explicitly routes away from this tool for two cases: 'For the cheapest offers over several pages use tl_find_cheapest; for one product's sellers, colors and installment prices use tl_product.' It also explains the intended follow-up use of returned filter codes. It stops short of stating the primary when-to-use condition or when other siblings (tl_suggest, tl_deals, tl_campaigns) are preferable.

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