Search RedMart Products

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds valuable behavioral context: it excludes unrelated popular-item fallbacks, tells the agent to read relevance notes and verify candidates, and warns that listings are untrusted data. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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 description is compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds routing and trust caveats. It uses four sentences with no filler, though it slightly stacks multiple warnings that could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, alternatives, fallback behavior, and data trustworthiness. The main gap is that several optional parameters remain unexplained, which matters because schema coverage is low.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters like page, sort, and limit. It does not: it says nothing about pagination, sorting, result limits, or the redmart_only toggle. The only indirect semantic hint is the mention of Lazada/RedMart, which does not explain the parameters.

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 description opens with a specific verb plus resource ('Search Lazada/RedMart for live product discovery'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming shortlist_products and render_product_picker as alternatives for different tasks.

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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: for lists or comparisons, prefer shortlist_products and render_product_picker. It also warns against substituting web results and directs the agent to ask before external enrichment, which is actionable routing guidance.

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