chewy_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the most surprising traits: transparent redirect of category-matching queries with source_url reflecting the actual listing fetched, default relevance ordering, single-page return, and the rule that valid filters pair facets[].value with options[].value from a prior response. It omits error/empty-result behavior and rate-limit or auth notes, but for a search tool the disclosed traits are the ones most likely to mislead an agent.

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?

Four sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by return payload, parameter semantics, and the two non-obvious behaviors (redirect, filter construction). Every sentence carries necessary information, though the final filter sentence is dense; there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly enumerates the returned fields (price, autoship, stock, rating, images, facets). It also covers pagination (one page, page param, 36 products/page), the redirect quirk, and filter construction — the highest-risk aspects of this tool. Minor gaps: no error handling, empty-result, or rate-limit information.

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 adds a concrete q example ('salmon dog food'). Critically, the schema's filter description is truncated ('Each value is "'), and the description supplies the missing semantics: filters are key:value pairs built from prior facet responses.

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 (Chewy by keyword) and enumerates the return payload: one page of normalized product listing with price, autoship price/discount, stock, rating, images, plus embedded facets. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like chewy_product (single product), chewy_category (category browse), and chewy_suggest (autocomplete). The described redirect behavior further pins down what the tool actually 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?

The description provides useful behavioral context — generic queries that strongly match Chewy categories are redirected to category listings, and filters must be constructed from prior facet responses — which implies how to use the tool effectively. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., chewy_product, chewy_category, chewy_suggest) or states when not to use this tool. The guidance is inferred from behavior rather than stated as usage rules.

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