adidas_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers important edge-case behavior: keyword search is best-effort, empty keyword returns an empty list, page beyond range or unknown category returns a not-found error, and pagination is real. It also explains how to derive category slugs from URLs and response fields, which is highly 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 structured logically: purpose first, then required arguments, return contents, behavioral caveats, and category derivation. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy, and it remains readable despite its density.

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?

This is a complete description for a search/browse tool with no annotations and no output schema. It covers both usage modes, required parameter constraints, return summaries, facets, sort options, pagination, error behavior, and category slug derivation. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters clearly (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful extra semantics: explains how to construct category values from Adidas URLs or response breadcrumbs/filters, clarifies the one-of requirement, and describes empty-search and page-boundary behavior. This goes beyond the schema but does not redefine each parameter in full detail.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Searches Adidas.com product listings by keyword, or browses a category listing by taxonomy slug.' It clearly distinguishes the two modes (keyword vs. category browse) and separates this tool from siblings like adidas_product (single product) and adidas_suggest (autocomplete).

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 clear usage context: exactly one of query or category is required, plus real pagination and sort options. It also warns about best-effort keyword match and not-found error cases. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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