moncler_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return payload in detail (normalized name/price/image, orderable color/size variant ids, live stock level) and the presence of live facet counts and sort options. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but for a catalog search tool the behavioral disclosure is unusually specific.

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 sentences, zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the return contract follows, and the filter guidance closes it. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 5 params and no output schema, so the description must explain return values — and it does, covering product fields, facets, counts, and sort options. The main gap is that sibling routing is implicit rather than explicit, and the truncated filter schema is not fully repaired by the description. Still, nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it explains that sort options come from the search index itself and that the filter param narrows the same result set (rather than issuing a new search). This is especially helpful because the schema's filter description is visibly truncated ('Each value is \"'), which the description compensates for.

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 ('Search Moncler products', 'Searches Moncler's product catalog by keyword') and is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like moncler_categories, moncler_product, moncler_stores, and moncler_suggest. An agent can tell this is the keyword-search entry point without opening any sibling schema.

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 clearly implies the use case — keyword-driven catalog search — and hints at filtering behavior ('Narrow the same results with the filter param below'). However, it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., 'use moncler_categories to browse, moncler_suggest for autocomplete'), leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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