everlane_search_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the endpoint is credential-free and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which clarifies access requirements. It does not mention rate limits, response shape, error behavior, or any mutation risk, though this appears to be a simple read-only endpoint.

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 compact at three sentences, with the primary action and resource front-loaded. The second sentence packs return types, the URL, and credential-free status efficiently. The final sentence about the fixed server-side URL is slightly redundant with the earlier URL mention, but still earns its place by clarifying configuration expectations.

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?

The description covers purpose, return categories, auth requirements, and the fixed endpoint. Since there is no output schema, the description only partially explains return values by naming the categories rather than their structure. It lacks usage exclusions and a brief example, which would round it out, but it is adequate for a straightforward suggest endpoint.

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% description coverage: q, limit, and types are all individually documented with their meanings, defaults, and allowed values. The description adds marginal value by listing the return types ('products, collections, and query suggestions'), which aligns with the 'types' parameter. Since the schema already carries the parameter details, the description doesn't need to compensate, keeping this at baseline.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Everlane search suggestions'), and lists the return categories (products, collections, query suggestions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like everlane_product or everlane_pages by focusing on predictive search suggestions. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource scope is 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?

Usage context is implied: this is for search/autocomplete suggestions, as indicated by 'predictive search Ajax endpoint'. The notes about being credential-free and having a fixed server-side URL signal low setup burden. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when a different tool (e.g., everlane_product) would be more appropriate.

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