homedepot_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers return format, page size cap (up to 24 products), total result count, and the important edge case that an unrecognized/blocked query returns an upstream error rather than an empty result. Could add details like sorting or rate limits, but it is strong for a 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?

Three compact sentences: the first states the core function and return payload, the second covers both parameters, and the third discloses the error behavior. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded; no wasted words.

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 2-parameter search endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains pagination, the result schema (including normalized product fields and total count), and the error case. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%: both q and page are described with their types, defaults, and semantics. The description repeats these and adds an example keyword ("impact driver"), but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (keyword search) and resource (Home Depot product listings) and details the return payload (normalized products with title, image, model, prices, rating/review count, total result count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like homedepot_categories, homedepot_category, and homedepot_product.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a keyword search and explains pagination usage via the page parameter. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this for free-text search versus browsing categories or product details.

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