burberry_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains return content (normalized summaries, facets with live counts), pagination behavior (offset increments of 20), sort semantics, facet application syntax, empty-result handling, and the lack of a grand-total count. This is comprehensive and goes beyond what a schema would convey.

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 longer than minimal but each sentence contributes essential information. It front-loads the core purpose, then details facets, pagination, and edge cases. No redundant filler; structure is logical and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes return structure (normalized summaries, facets with counts) and important behavioral aspects like empty results and missing grand-total count. It lacks details on other potential response fields, but for a search tool it covers the essential information needed to call and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for all parameters: it clarifies offset pagination increments, explains sort selection, and provides a concrete example for facets syntax. This exceeds baseline by detailing how parameters interact and what values mean.

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 a specific action ('Search Burberry products') and resource ('product catalog by keyword'). It also differentiates from a key sibling (burberry-category) by noting the absence of a grand-total count, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool (for keyword-based search with facets and pagination) and explicitly contrasts with burberry-category, but does not explicitly state 'use this when' or list alternative tools. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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