farfetch_designers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavioral context: the data is public and sourced from Farfetch's own designer-directory pages, and the output slugs are directly compatible with the search filter. It does not discuss freshness or pagination, but for a simple read-only directory tool this is adequate.

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 and front-loaded, with the essential return-value information in the second sentence and useful downstream guidance in the third. The opening phrase 'Farfetch designer directory' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is 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?

For a single-parameter directory tool with no output schema, the description provides the return fields (name, slug, URL), the department scope, and a direct integration path into /farfetch/search. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it does not describe the exact response shape or edge cases.

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 already documents the only parameter, gender, as 'Department: women, men, kids' with 100% coverage. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns a department's full designer directory with name, slug, and URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling Farfetch tools like farfetch_product or farfetch_search, and the output fields are explicitly listed.

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 gives clear downstream context by explaining that each returned slug is usable directly as the designer filter on GET /farfetch/search. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it for designer-directory lookups.

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