search_affiliate_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search and ranking behavior (expanding keywords, Affiliate Win Score) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. As a search tool, 'Search' suggests a safe read, but the absence of explicit disclosure in the description leaves some ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Search'), then provides scope ('Shopee and TikTok Shop Vietnam') and distinctive behavior ('expanding keywords and ranking by Affiliate Win Score'). Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is zero repetition or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description gives enough context about the purpose, process, and scope. It doesn't explain the return format, but the agent can reasonably infer result details from the concept of 'search' and 'ranking'. The information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage, documenting 'query' as a seed idea and 'platform' as a target platform with an enum. The description's mention of 'expanding keywords' adds some flavor but does not substantively clarify parameters beyond the schema. It is adequate but not a significant value add.

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 specifies the verb 'Search', the resource 'winning e-commerce products', the geographic/scope context 'Shopee and TikTok Shop Vietnam', and the unique behavior 'expanding keywords and ranking by Affiliate Win Score'. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools like 'audit_seller' or 'query_marketplace_database' without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 its usage for finding winning products, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. With only general context and no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, the agent must infer suitability from the purpose.

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