goat_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that access is credential-free, that it uses the same JSON API as GOAT's search page, that query is optional, and what the returned summaries contain. It doesn't mention rate limits or error behavior, but this is solid for a public read-only search 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?

The description is long but every clause earns its place: purpose, facet types, return shape, optional-query behavior, and access model. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains appropriately dense for a 22-parameter tool.

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 complex 22-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what it searches/browses, how to use it with or without a query, what results look like, and that no credentials are needed. Schema covers parameter details, and the description adds the return-shape context the missing output schema would otherwise need to provide.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's facet list and optional-query note largely echo schema descriptions; it adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search... Searches or browses') and resource ('GOAT's sneaker/streetwear/collectibles catalog'), and specifies both input modes (free-text query and/or facet filters) and output (normalized product summaries plus total matching count). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like goat_search_facets or goat_product, even without naming them.

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?

Gives clear context: query is optional, facet-filter-only browsing mirrors GOAT's own category/brand pages, and the data is credential-free public. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as goat_search_facets for valid facet values or goat_product for detail, nor states when not to use this tool.

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