search_designsSearch published clothing designs by keyword (German or English). Returns title, price, product type and the product URL for each hit. Use this FIRST — an existing design ships immediately and costs the customer nothing extra.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (1-25, default 10). | |
| query | Yes | Search term, e.g. 'Wolf', 'Rosen', 'anime fox'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description is the only source of behavior. It discloses that search is by keyword and returns title, price, product type, and URL, but does not mention side effects, sorting, pagination, or error behavior beyond the schema's limit.
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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose (function, return fields, usage priority). No filler or repetition of schema 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?
Without an output schema, the description covers the key return fields and gives usage context. It lacks details on ordering and does not reference sibling tools for when to use alternatives, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the explicit constraint that query can be in German or English, which complements the schema's examples and helps an agent construct valid queries.
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 states 'Search published clothing designs by keyword (German or English)' with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates returned fields, clearly distinguishing this catalogue-wide search from the sibling tools design_link and get_design.
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 instructs 'Use this FIRST' and gives a concrete reason: an existing design ships immediately and costs nothing extra. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, so it lacks a when-not-to-use statement.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct function: design_link initiates a new custom design, search_designs finds existing published designs, and get_design retrieves detailed information for a specific design. There is no overlapping purpose, and their relationships are clearly defined (search returns IDs that get_design consumes).
Two tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_design, search_designs), but design_link breaks this pattern as it reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-driven action. The style is readable but not uniformly consistent.
With 3 tools, the server is at the low end of the typical well-scoped range. Each tool earns its place, covering search, detail retrieval, and creation initiation. The count feels appropriately minimal for the narrow purpose.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: discover existing designs (search), inspect details (get), and create new ones (design_link). Minor gaps exist such as no explicit update/delete for designs, but these are not expected in this service-oriented context. The order URL in get_design and the handoff to the human in design_link address the remaining steps.