jcrew_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the return format (normalized product summaries with USD pricing, gender, description), facets with live per-option counts, the best-effort relevance behavior, and the fallback for obscure alphanumeric keywords. It also honestly warns that no reliable field distinguishes true matches from the fallback. It loses one point only because it doesn't disclose pagination limits or other access constraints.

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 efficiently structured: core purpose first, then return payload, then sort and filter semantics, then an important reliability caveat. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information, with no filler or repetition. The warning about best-effort matching is substantive, not padding.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden. It covers search scope, return content, sort options, filter mechanics, and caveats about match reliability. However, it does not mention pagination defaults or limits for the page/per_page parameters, which is a meaningful gap for a search tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are terse ('Search keyword', 'Sort order', 'Storefront to search'). The description adds meaning: it explains the default site value, enumerates the exact sort options, defines filter formatting (comma-separated name:value pairs with a concrete example), and explains the source of valid facet values. That exceeds the baseline 3, but not a 5 because page/per_page semantics and defaults are not clarified.

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 'Search J.Crew or J.Crew Factory products', naming a specific verb and resource (the product catalog) and the two storefronts. It explicitly distinguishes the storefronts via the 'site' parameter, and its detailed description clearly differentiates it from the many jcrew_* sibling tools (categories, product, reviews, size chart, stores, suggest).

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 states exactly when to use the tool: searching the product catalog for either storefront, with site defaulting to jcrew. It provides explicit operational guidance on sort values (relevance, price_asc, price_desc), filter syntax with a concrete example, and instructs that filter values should be sourced from a prior response's facets[] fields. The scope of use is unambiguous.

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