stockx_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating 'Credential-free public data' and describing the output as 'normalized product summaries with headline pricing plus the total matching count'. It lacks explicit read-only/side-effect statements or rate-limit notes, but the public-data disclosure is valuable context beyond the name and schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Search/browse StockX products'), then precise details about inputs, outputs, and data source. Every phrase earns its place with no 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 tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input scope, output nature, and access requirements effectively. It could mention pagination or defaults, but the schema already documents page/limit defaults, so 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level framing by grouping filters as 'facet filters (gender, brand, color, shoe height, activity, availability)' and mentioning free-text keyword search, but it does not enrich individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Search/browse StockX products' with clear scoping to the product catalog, listing optional keyword search and facet filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stockx_product (product detail) and stockx_categories (category list) by describing what this tool returns: normalized summaries, headline pricing, and total count.

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 indicates when to use this tool: to browse or search StockX's catalog by category with optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use stockx_product for full details', so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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