1stDibs

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral details such as the filter query string format with an example and a pointer to the taxonomy for filter discovery. However, it omits return shape, pagination defaults, and any side-effect or authorization context, leaving gaps.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains filter syntax, and the third directs to the taxonomy. It's front-loaded and has no redundant content.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and pagination behavior. It provides filter format and taxonomy pointer, but lacks information about what the browse response contains and how Page numbering works, making it only partially complete.

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 already describes all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the filters format with a concrete example and linking facets to the taxonomy, which enhances understanding of 'filters' and 'category' beyond the schema.

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 identifies a 'Browse' operation on '1stDibs Items' with category, page, and filters, which distinguishes it from item_details (details) and search_items (search). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 a workflow by telling the agent to 'Read the taxonomy to discover facets and filters,' which points to the read_taxonomy sibling tool. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use browse_items over search_items or item_details, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only says 'Get details', which implies a read operation but does not disclose what details are returned, whether authentication is required, or any error behavior. This is a thin disclosure for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause contributes value. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter getter tool, the description covers the core functionality and prerequisite source for the ID. While there is no output schema, the absence of detail about return fields is not critical here, though a slightly richer description of what 'details' includes would improve completeness.

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 fully describes itemId, but the tool description adds practical guidance by stating that the ID must be input and that it can be found through searching or browsing. This helps the agent understand how to populate the parameter, going beyond the schema's definition.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'details on a specific item on 1stDibs', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like browse_items and search_items by focusing on a specific item ID.

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 explains that an item ID is needed and explicitly points to search/browse tools as a way to obtain it. This provides clear usage context, though it stops short of saying when not to use this tool or naming alternatives directly as exclusions.

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

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 output (list of categories and facets) and the need for a category, giving a clear behavioral picture. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but for a read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 three sentences that are focused and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers its purpose, input requirement, and return value. It also provides context about the taxonomy hierarchy, making it self-sufficient.

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 only says 'Category to read taxonomy for,' while the description enriches this by listing example top-level categories (furniture, art, etc.) and emphasizing the requirement. That adds practical meaning beyond the schema.

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's function with 'Discover how items on 1stDibs are categorized' and specifies it returns next-level categories and facets. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_items and browse_items, which focus on items rather than taxonomy structure.

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?

It establishes a clear use case for exploring taxonomy and requires a category input with 'You need to specify a category.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so guidance is context-rich but not fully explicit.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filter format and the need to read the taxonomy, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention response format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving some aspects unstated.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, explaining filter syntax, and directing the user to taxonomy. No unnecessary 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 three parameters, the description covers the essential inputs, filter format, and a pointer to taxonomy for valid filter values. It lacks an explicit response structure, but this is not strictly required for correct invocation, so it is largely complete.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, meeting the baseline. The description adds significant value by specifying the 'filters' parameter's exact query-string format with a concrete example (category=furniture&location=usa-north-america), which goes beyond the generic schema description.

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's function: 'Search 1stDibs with the given query and optional page number and filters.' It uses a specific verb ('search'), names the resource ('1stDibs items'), and differentiates from siblings like browse_items and item_details by emphasizing query-based search with filters.

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 usage through 'Search 1stDibs with the given query' and advises 'Read the taxonomy to discover categories, facets and filters,' suggesting a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose search over browse_items or item_details, nor does it provide exclusion conditions or alternatives.

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