search_sareesSearch visible Vaanzari sarees using verified catalogue fields. Missing attributes remain unset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| fabric | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| occasion | No | ||
| technique | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating that only visible sarees are searchable and that verified catalogue fields are used, plus noting that missing attributes remain unset. This gives agents useful expectations about result coverage and field completeness.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by stating scope and a key behavioral caveat, though 'Missing attributes remain unset' is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer.
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?
Although the output schema may document return values, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain how filters interact, what 'verified catalogue fields' means for parameter values, or how pagination works. An agent could call the tool but lacks essential context for precise query construction.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0% and seven parameters, the description bears the burden of explaining how to use q, fabric, region, occasion, technique, page, and limit. It does none of that; 'verified catalogue fields' is too vague to clarify valid values or filtering semantics.
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'), the resource ('visible Vaanzari sarees'), and the intended scope ('using verified catalogue fields'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_saree by indicating it searches across a filtered, visible catalogue rather than retrieving a single known item.
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 use for searching the visible catalogue but never explicitly states when to prefer this over a sibling such as get_saree or list_artisans. There is no exclusion guidance or alternative routing, leaving the usage context only partially defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action (cart, orders, tickets, picks, payments), so an agent can generally select the right one. The only notable ambiguity is resume_payment vs retry_payment, which both describe acting on an unpaid hosted payment attempt with nearly identical wording.
All 29 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun (or verb_preposition_noun) pattern with standard verbs like get, list, create, close, remove, and set. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic names.
At 29 tools this is a heavy surface, but the broad e-commerce scope (catalog, cart, checkout, payment, orders, support, rewards) justifies most of them. A few payment-attempt tools could be consolidated, so it sits at the overbuilt rather than absurdly bloated end.
The set covers the main customer journey from browsing/searching sarees through cart, checkout, payment status, orders, and post-purchase support. Minor gaps exist—for example, no explicit apply_coupon/redeem_points tool or standalone catalogue listing—but agents can work around them with validate_coupon, checkout summary, and search.