tiffany_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by describing normalized output fields, USD pricing, live stock status, sort behavior, single-value filter semantics, and the well-formed empty result for non-matching queries. It does not cover pagination metadata or response structure, but the disclosed behaviors go well beyond a minimal statement.

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 compact and well-structured, with each sentence earning its place: core search function, return content, sort/filter semantics, and empty-result behavior. It front-loads the primary purpose and does not include filler or repetition of schema details.

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 10-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it names return fields, pricing and stock behavior, sort options, filter semantics, and empty-result handling. It references tiffany-filters for the live value space. Minor gaps include pagination defaults and the exact response envelope shape, but the essential calling context is covered.

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%, providing baseline parameter documentation. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it enumerates the sort enum values with the default, clarifies that filters are optional single-value constraints, and names the filterable fields. It does not add detail to page or per_page, but those are adequately described in 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Searches Tiffany & Co.'s product catalog by free-text keyword.' It clearly identifies the tool as a search operation and distinguishes its return type as normalized product summaries. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like tiffany_product or tiffany_suggest.

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 for when to use the tool: free-text keyword search over the product catalog, with optional filters and sort options. It also points to tiffany-filters for valid filter values. But it does not state exclusions or explicitly tell the agent when to prefer alternatives such as tiffany_product, tiffany_categories, or tiffany_suggest.

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