Search & compare products across Brazilian marketplaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the paid cost ($0.01), the sampling limitation ('of what we sampled'), the need to read `data_as_of` / `sources` for freshness, and unit normalization (BRL integer cents). These go well beyond generic search behavior.

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-loaded: the first sentence states the core capability, followed by output format details and key caveats. It is dense but each sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields (price, link, imageUrl, shipping flag, rating, seller info) and warning about data freshness and paid cost. It covers the essential context without needing to explain every parameter, since the schema does that.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The output-focused details (e.g., integer cents) do not clarify parameter semantics. 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 description states a specific verb ('Search') with a precise resource ('Mercado Livre, Shopee and AliExpress') and clear scope ('in ONE call'). It differentiates from siblings like search_by_image and calculate_import_taxes by emphasizing multi-marketplace search and normalized offer output.

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 implies usage as the primary combined search tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It provides contextual cautions (e.g., 'a short list may mean a marketplace was down') but no direct exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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