Search Klaravik

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job by noting that prices are current bids and can rise before the auction ends, which is a key behavioral trait. It also discloses that Swedish terms work best, adding useful insight into expected interaction. It doesn't cover every aspect, but it provides meaningful context beyond a generic 'search'.

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 exactly three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: identifying the tool, describing the pricing behavior, and providing a language tip. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with no redundant or filler words.

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 search tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what the tool searches, when it is most useful, how prices behave, and a language tip. It lacks an explicit statement about read-only nature, but that is implied by 'search'. Overall it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has only one parameter, 'query', with no description. The description adds the guidance that 'Swedish search terms work best', which directly informs how to use the query parameter. However, this is a single tip and does not fully compensate for the total lack of schema-level description, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'Search' and the specific resource 'Klaravik.se', a Swedish online auction house. It also distinguishes this tool from other marketplace searches by noting it is an auction house, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'strong for undervalued tools, machinery, and house-clearance goods.' It also offers a practical tip that Swedish search terms work best. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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