Search Filters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the return shape (each filter's param and values, range filters expose min/max, price uses min_price/max_price) and explicitly flags that the category tree is not included. It omits auth/permission needs, pagination, or result-size limits, but for a read-only discovery call the coverage is solid.

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 what the tool returns, then the workflow. Efficient overall, though the second paragraph drifts into search_products' filter syntax and price arguments, which is useful routing but not strictly this tool's own description.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still adds the filter-to-search_products handoff and the category-tree exclusion, which the schema cannot express. The main gap is the unexplained 'market' input and lack of any scope/market-variant caveat for a tool with a market parameter.

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 coverage is 0% for 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It conveys that 'query' is the search term but never explains 'market' (or its null default), and the param/value and min_price/max_price references describe outputs and a sibling's arguments rather than this tool's inputs.

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 concrete verb+resource: it returns the filters available for a search term along with hit counts per value. This is clearly distinct from sibling search_products (which consumes filters) and from find_markets/get_related, so an agent can disambiguate it without opening another 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?

Explicitly says to use it to narrow a broad search down and gives the follow-up workflow (pass results into search_products(filters={param: [value, ...]})). It gives clear context but does not state when NOT to use it or note alternatives such as the category tree, which is excluded.

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