stockx_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are 'normalized product summaries with headline pricing plus the total matching count' and that data is 'credential-free public data,' which is useful. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or any edge cases, leaving notable gaps for a 14-parameter 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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action. The second sentence provides useful context about the data source and output, though phrases like 'same GraphQL API' and 'normalized product summaries' add mild complexity for an agent without adding much decision value.

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 complex 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, result shape, and public-data nature, but omits guidance on tool selection and any behavioral caveats. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer important context from the schema alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the high-level concept that gender, brand, color, shoe height, activity, and availability are 'facet filters,' and that query is a free-text keyword search. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, which already documents each parameter's format, enum values, and examples.

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/browse StockX products' and 'Browses StockX's product catalog by category.' It also conveys the scope by mentioning optional keyword search, facet filters, and the normalized summaries with pricing and match count. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like stockx_product or stockx_releases, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 usage: use this tool when you need to search or browse StockX's product catalog, optionally filtered by facets or keywords. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives such as stockx_product or stockx_brands, nor gives any exclusion criteria. The credential-free note provides context but not routing guidance.

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