depop_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well: it notes the data is public (implying a safe read operation), describes the normalized return shape (title, price, brand, condition, photos, sizes), and mentions the pagination cursor and total count. It doesn't discuss rate limits or error conditions, but the disclosure is substantial for a read-only search.

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, and every segment adds value: the search scope, filter types, return payload, and data source. No filler or redundancy.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid high-level picture: it states the marketplace, the query mechanism, the key return components, and the public nature of the data. It doesn't enumerate every filter value or mention pagination limits, but those are either in the schema or not essential for initial selection and invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed per-parameter descriptions. The description adds a high-level summary of filter categories (price, condition, colour, category, etc.) but no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly.

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 opens with 'Search Depop listings' — a specific verb and resource — and further specifies a free-text keyword search over Depop's resale-fashion marketplace. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like depop_item (single item) and depop_categories (taxonomy) by stating it returns listing summaries, a pagination cursor, and total count.

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 clearly states the primary use case: search Depop listings by keyword with optional filters. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for single-item or category lookups, the context is clear enough that an agent would know this is the general search endpoint. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, but the scope is unambiguous.

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