minxa

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: return count cap (up to 10) and, notably, the non-obvious rule that setting max_price_usd drops items priced in other currencies, plus the gender defaulting behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with scope, then guidance, then return format, then the exclusion — a sensible order. Slightly verbose: the product-category list is repeated verbatim in the first and last sentences, which is redundant but not harmful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still summarizes the payload (photo, price, brand, shop, product link). Combined with usage examples, exclusions, and the currency caveat, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 goes further by demonstrating how query and max_price_usd combine in a real call and by explaining the gender default semantics ('left out, minxa searches women's unless the words say whose'), which clarifies intent rather than restating 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (minxa fashion search engine) and enumerates the exact catalog scope: clothes, shoes, bags, jewelry, accessories, beauty. The closing sentence explicitly bounds the domain, so an agent knows precisely what this tool does and does not cover.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance with a concrete example ('something to wear to a beach wedding in Mexico' with max_price_usd 200) and an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion ('minxa covers ... only, so do not call it for anything else'). No siblings exist, so no alternative routing is needed.

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