bestbuy_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals key behavior: returns up to 24 results, uses normalized listing fields, and returns an empty list for out-of-range pages rather than an error. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the read-only search context makes this omission acceptable.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loads the search-and-return behavior, and provides all parameter semantics without filler. It is slightly dense but well-structured for the complexity of a two-parameter search tool.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description covers the needed ground: it enumerates output fields, page size, and the page-past-end behavior. It does not describe ordering, sort options, or error conditions for malformed input, but for a straightforward search endpoint the call semantics are 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: q is described as 'free-text search keywords' with a concrete example, and page not only has its 1-indexed default clarified but also the edge-case behavior of out-of-range pages returning an empty list. This added context is genuinely useful.

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 searches Best Buy's product catalog and explicitly lists what it returns (sku, title, url, image, price, rating, review count), so an agent can grasp the scope. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from sibling tools like bestbuy_product, but the 'search' verb and catalog scope make the function's role clear.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a keyword search over Best Buy's catalog, with q as free-text search and pagination via page. It provides an example query and explains pagination behavior, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when to use another tool like bestbuy_product.

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