fashionphile_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does substantial work: it explains that results are normalized and ranked, that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, that only in-stock listings are searched by default, that `availability=sold` searches the sold archive, and that `total_items` is an exact count. It does not discuss error behavior or rate limits, but the core search semantics and defaults are transparent.

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 five information-dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the most decision-relevant details (default availability, full-catalog browsing, exact count semantics) placed early. There is minor redundancy between 'Search Fashionphile products' and 'Returns normalized, ranked products from Fashionphile's ... product search,' but no wasted sentences overall.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what the tool searches, how it differs from catalog endpoints, what happens when `q` is omitted, default availability behavior, and how to reach the sold archive. It could be more complete by naming sibling tools explicitly or outlining the response shape beyond `total_items`, but nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that omitting `q` browses the full catalog, that availability defaults to in-stock only, and that `total_items` reflects the exact match count after all filters. It does not add new semantics for `page`, `sort`, or `limit`, but the schema already documents those clearly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search Fashionphile products.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling endpoints by noting it exposes condition grade, discount percentage, and other filter attributes 'not available from the classic catalog JSON endpoints in this family.' An agent can clearly tell this is the full-text/faceted search tool, not a catalog or product-detail tool.

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 behavioral context for when to use the tool: it covers full-text and faceted search, browsing the full catalog when `q` is omitted, and switching between in-stock and sold-archive listings via `availability`. It references the alternative 'classic catalog JSON endpoints in this family' but does not name a specific sibling tool or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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