Search Vinted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that the source is unofficial, bot-protected, fragile, and rate-limited, which is valuable transparency. It does not cover response format but that is handled by the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Each clause adds distinct value: what it is, what it's good for, shipping scope, and reliability caveats.

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?

The description covers the domain, shipping, and reliability, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it fails to mention the price-filter options or any query construction details, leaving a gap in the tool's overall usage context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation for the query, price_min, or price_max parameters, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance beyond the property names. This is a complete gap.

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 tool searches Vinted.se, a second-hand fashion marketplace, and notes its strengths (leather/wool, branded clothing). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the source, but does not directly compare to other search tools.

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 useful context (good for specific items, ships anywhere, unofficial and fragile) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternative marketplace search tools. Exclusionary guidance is absent.

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