lazada_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it requires a residential proxy because Lazada blocks datacenter IPs, states billing is a pay-per-event model charged to the Apify account, and names concrete event prices. It stops short of describing failure modes, anti-bot blocking behavior, or what a run returns.

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?

The lead sentence is well front-loaded, but pricing is stated twice — once in the summary line and again as a standalone 'Pricing (pay per event...)' paragraph that largely repeats the same figures. That redundancy and the marketing tagline consume space without adding information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say something about what a run yields (product fields, alert payload shape), but it only says alerts POST 'JSON' to a webhook. Cost, proxy, and market coverage are covered adequately, leaving the return-value gap as the notable hole for a 14-parameter tool.

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 all 14 parameters are already documented with defaults, enums, and constraints in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond restating the pricing that maps to maxResultsPerQuery. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource: scrape Lazada search results and category pages across six SEA markets, plus price/stock monitoring. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though the sibling list contains no other Lazada tool, so no explicit differentiation is needed or provided.

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?

The description frames the tool as scraping plus monitoring but never says when to enable `monitor` versus a one-off scrape, nor when to prefer scheduled runs over a single call. Usage conditions are only implied through the schema's per-parameter descriptions, not the tool description itself.

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