prada_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses typo-tolerant relevance ranking and the empty-result behavior (returns well-formed empty result rather than error), which are valuable and not evident from the schema. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but these are partially in the schema (page/limit) and not critical 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value (purpose, cross-reference, behavioral notes). There is no filler or redundancy.

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 search tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers key behavioral nuances (typo tolerance, empty result handling) and references a sibling. It does not explain the return structure, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a list-style search, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra semantics: it reiterates q is required (already in schema) and notes gender/sort match prada-category, which is a cross-reference but not new meaning. It does not enrich page, limit, or the sort default beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Prada's product catalog', specifies the mechanism (keyword search via its own public index), and distinguishes itself from siblings like prada_category and prada_product by focusing on free-text search. It also clarifies the typo-tolerant relevance ranking, adding precision.

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 implies when to use this tool (keyword search) and cross-references prada-category for the same optional gender/sort values, which hints at alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or when to prefer category browsing over keyword search, so it is not fully explicit.

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