jcrew_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by specifying the return shape: a flat list of suggested search phrases with live result counts. It also clarifies the site default and the 'not product data' nature, though it omits details like error behavior or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, with no redundant phrasing. Every clause adds useful information: return type, result contents, site selection, and a disambiguation from product data.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the input semantics, default behavior, return format, and what the tool does not provide. An agent can call this correctly without additional context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the site parameter's default (jcrew) and clarifying that the query should be a partial search string, which goes slightly beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Get J.Crew or J.Crew Factory search-box suggestions.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from product searches by noting it returns typeahead suggestions, not product data, and differentiates storefronts via the site parameter.

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 gives clear context: use it for storefront typeahead suggestions for a partial query, with site selection and a default. It explicitly excludes product data, which prevents misuse, but it does not name specific sibling alternatives like jcrew_search or other suggest tools.

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