bigcommerce_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is a single normalized page, that only the origin URL is valid, and that caller-supplied paths or query strings are ignored. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but it gives the key behavioral constraints an agent needs.

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 tight sentences deliver purpose, return type, url constraint, and parameter semantics with no filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple three-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers invocation, defaults, and an important edge case about ignored paths. The main gap is that 'normalized product-search page' does not describe the result shape in detail, and error behavior is unspecified.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly warning that an optional caller path or query is ignored, which is valuable for agents tempted to pass a full product URL. The q and page notes mostly restate 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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search a BigCommerce storefront.' It then clarifies that the output is 'one normalized product-search page,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bigcommerce_product or bigcommerce_category. A selecting agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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?

It provides clear invocation context: the url must be the public storefront origin, path/query strings are ignored, q is required, and page defaults to 1. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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