tiffany_content_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the search scope (editorial only), the non-searchable data (product fields), and the well-formed empty result for non-matching keywords. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure, which would add further 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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose, then adds the key non-product boundary and a helpful edge-case behavior. It's efficient with no obvious wasted words, though slightly verbose with the 'World of Tiffany' quoting.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential scope, exclusions, and empty-result behavior. It doesn't explain pagination defaults or response fields, but those are not required if the schema and output structure are self-evident. It's adequate but not 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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal nuance ('free-text keyword') beyond the schema's 'Search keyword' and doesn't elaborate on page or per_page semantics. Since the schema already documents all parameters, the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search Tiffany & Co. editorial content' with concrete examples of editorial pages (style guides, gift guides, World of Tiffany articles). It explicitly contrasts with product data, naming absent fields, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like tiffany_search. The empty-result behavior further clarifies what the tool delivers.

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 on when to use the tool (for editorial content) and explicitly excludes product data with 'no price, stock, or item id fields.' It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the negative boundary and scope examples are enough for an agent to choose appropriately in most cases.

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