rebag_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal useful traits: results are normalized, ranked, condition grade is 'best-effort', and the storefront URL is fixed server-side. But it omits details about pagination behavior, response structure, error handling, or output fields, which limits transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying provenance, unique output attributes, and a server-side constraint.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: source, ranking, normalization, additional derived attributes, and the fixed URL. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though a bit more detail about the response format would make it fully comprehensive.

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%, so the input schema already explains all parameters well. The description adds a little context, such as full-text search semantics and the fixed server-side URL, but it does not materially enrich any parameter 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search Rebag products' and explains that it returns normalized, ranked full-text search results. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting the best-effort condition grade and colour derived from catalog tags, attributes not available from the classic catalog JSON endpoints.

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 about when this tool is valuable: when you need normalized, ranked full-text search with condition grade and colour that classic catalog endpoints lack. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state a when-not-to-use condition, so some inference is still required.

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