gucci_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that empty results return a well-formed empty product list rather than an error, that result counts are live, and that size_facets provides live counts for filtering. These are meaningful behaviors beyond a basic search description, though it omits details like pagination or error handling.

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. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds behavior details. The only flaw is the near-duplicate phrasing of the first two sentences, which adds a few redundant words but still each sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing the response shape: normalized product summaries, live total count, and a size_facets field. It also covers empty-result behavior. It does not explain how page/limit interact or error cases, but those are standard enough and covered by the schema.

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% with each parameter already described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value for the size parameter by explaining how size_facets in the response can be used to populate size for a follow-up filter, which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool searches Gucci's product catalog, using a keyword, and lists specific output fields (name, price, colors, materials, sizes, gender, stock). This distinguishes it from other retailer-specific search tools, though it redundantly repeats the search verb and resource across the first two sentences.

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?

It gives clear context: this tool is for keyword searching Gucci products. It also provides a concrete usage pattern for filtering by size using the size_facets field on a follow-up call. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, though the tool name makes the scope obvious.

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