firstdibs_designers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns designer values from a selected category page and that slugs are valid for firstdibs-search's designer filter. However, it does not state what happens when the optional 'category' parameter is omitted, whether all designers are returned, or any pagination or limit behavior. This is a moderate gap for a list tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key detail about slug usability for firstdibs-search is placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 listing tool, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, where the input comes from, and how the output is used downstream. It lacks explicit mention of the output schema or behavior without a category, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's clarity, it is nearly complete. The ambiguity around the optional category prevents a 5.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents it well. The description adds marginal value by referring to the 'selected 1stDibs category page,' which reinforces the source of the slug. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema is complete and the description provides no new semantics.

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 ('List'), a resource ('1stDibs designers'), and clearly differentiates itself from siblings by noting the returned slugs are valid for firstdibs-search's designer filter. It also mentions dependency on a category page, which ties into firstdibs-categories. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from other tools.

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 implies usage: first obtain a category slug from firstdibs-categories, then call this tool to get designers for that category, and use those slugs in firstdibs_search. It clearly states the relationship to alternatives (firstdibs_search, firstdibs_categories) and provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites beyond the category slug.

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