Shop Search

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call may consume paid API credits, that confirm=true is mandatory, and that the POST is read-like and does not publish to social platforms. That credit/permission context is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) cannot convey. It stops short of runtime details like rate limits or pagination limits.

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-loads the core action and return shape, then appends pagination, filtering, and cost/confirm caveats in short sentences. Slightly more could be trimmed, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (title, cover, url, price, sold_count, review_count, rating, shop_name) and covers pagination, region reliability, and the credit/confirm requirement. Minor gaps remain around result limits and error/empty-result behavior.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the enum region caveat and the confirm requirement. The description adds only a light restatement ('Paginate with page; filter by region', 'requires confirm=true'), matching the baseline 3 when structured fields do 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 (searches) and resource (TikTok Shop products) tied to a keyword query, which immediately separates it from siblings like tiktok_shop_product_details or tiktok_shop_shop_products. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by 'matching a keyword query' plus notes on paginating with `page` and filtering by region, which is enough to call it correctly. However, it never says when to prefer this over sibling product tools such as tiktok_shop_shop_products, tiktok_search_by_keyword, or tiktok_shop_product_details.

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