thebodyshop_search_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the endpoint is credential-free (no auth required), that it is an Ajax predictive search endpoint, and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This gives the agent useful behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema, though it does not mention rate limits or response format details.

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 with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by return types and one implementation note. Every sentence contributes useful information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 is simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description plus schema cover the key invocation details: required query, optional limit/types, auth-free access, and high-level return categories. A bit more detail on the response structure would have made it fully complete, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema fully documents 'q', 'limit', and 'types'. The description's mention of returning products, collections, and query suggestions loosely maps to the 'types' parameter, but adds no new parameter-level meaning. This aligns with the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 tool fetches The Body Shop search suggestions, explicitly listing the three return categories (products, collections, query suggestions). It also names the underlying credential-free predictive search Ajax endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. This distinguishes it from other suggest tools in the sibling list by brand and return type.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is relevant: when you need The Body Shop's search/autocomplete suggestions. It notes that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, so no URL configuration is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid or exclusion scenarios, but the intended usage is evident.

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