costco_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only public products are returned, lists result fields, and identifies the data source as Costco's own search backend. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or result limits; the 'Search' verb implies read-only behavior but is not made explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Search Costco products') and immediately followed by useful detail. No filler or redundant content; every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields, data source, and search scope. It does not explain behavior when both parameters are omitted, but the schema marks them optional, and the core use case is clear. It is complete enough for typical usage without excessive detail.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions ('Search text' and 'Costco category slug...'). The description adds only that they can be combined ('and/or'), which is already implied by the optional, unrequired fields in the schema. No significant new meaning is added.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Costco products', clearly stating it returns public products matching a text query and/or category slug. It also lists return fields (title, brand, model, image, rating), distinguishing it from sibling tools like costco_product (single product details) and costco_categories (category listings).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: searching by text query and/or category slug. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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