zappos_search

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description does a solid job: it discloses the 'real' pagination, enumerates returned product fields, describes filterable facets with live counts and drill-down URLs, and calls out the out-of-range-page edge case. It doesn't cover authentication or rate limits, but for a search tool the description is well above baseline 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 dense, useful, and only three sentences long. A slight redundancy exists in the first two statements ('Search Zappos products' followed by 'Searches Zappos's product catalog by keyword'), but each subsequent sentence adds significant detail, so the overall structure is still efficient.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it enumerates the returned product attributes and the enriched facet objects with live counts and URLs, and it covers the pagination edge case. The only thing an agent might need beyond this is knowing the default result count per page, which is not essential to invoking the tool 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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavioral meaning to page handling by explaining that requesting a page beyond results yields an empty result rather than an error, and it reinforces that pagination is 1-based and real. That extra depth justifies a 4.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Search Zappos products') and goes on to specify that it searches by keyword, uses page-based pagination, and returns a defined product set. This makes it unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling detail tools like zappos_product and from brand-only or suggest tools.

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 states that the tool is for keyword searching of the Zappos catalog, which gives the agent a clear condition for use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the keyword-search context is strong enough to select it among siblings.

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