supplier_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the behavioral approach: running both image and Chinese keyword searches, deduplicating, and normalizing into SupplierCandidate objects. It omits potential rate limits or network dependency details, but 'Search 1688.com' plus the read-only nature of the task make the behavior reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose sentence, two concise behavioral sentences, an Args section, and a clear usage note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or padding.

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 the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the process, parameters, and usage context well. It names the return type (SupplierCandidate objects) but does not detail those object fields, which would be useful given the missing output schema. Still, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates: 'asin: Amazon ASIN used for image search and fingerprint extraction' and 'search_keyword: Optional Chinese keyword override for text search.' This adds clear semantic meaning that the structured schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search 1688.com for supplier candidates matching an ASIN.' It further clarifies the dual-mode search (image and Chinese keyword) and normalization into SupplierCandidate objects, distinguishing it from siblings like asin_fingerprint or supplier_compare_prepare.

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 explicitly states 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: After building a fingerprint with asin_fingerprint.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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