search_filters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two modes but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, result volume, how catalog_ids affects scope, or what the response looks like. For an unannotated 4-param tool this is a substantial gap.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the primary mode front-loaded and the conditional filter_code mode second. The only structural weakness is that the parenthetical example list interrupts the main clause, slightly delaying comprehension.

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?

With 4 undocumented params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the shape of the returned filter list and the semantics of text/catalog_ids scoping. It covers roughly the filter_code path and leaves the rest for the agent to guess, which is not enough to call the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and only does so partially. It explains filter_code (selects which filter's options to list) and indirectly filter_search ('searching them by name'), but 'text' and 'catalog_ids' — two of four params, including the array param — get no explanation at all. Half the surface remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States the resource (search filters) and gives concrete example codes (brand, size, status, color, video_game_platform), which removes ambiguity about what a 'filter' is here. It also distinguishes two distinct behaviors: listing available filters vs. listing one filter's options. Closest to 5 but the two modes are packed into one sentence rather than clearly separated, so it stops short of fully distinguishing them from siblings like '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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Filters available for a search' hints that this precedes a filtered search, and the filter_code clause indicates the drill-down step. But it never says when to call this instead of 'suggest', 'listing_options', or 'find_brand', nor any prerequisite like needing catalog_ids first. Implied usage is the definition of a 3.

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