instacart_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions returns but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or whether results are real-time. The phrase 'availability' hints at dynamic data but doesn't clarify freshness or limitations.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and resource, the second specifies output. It's front-loaded with core functionality and efficiently structured, earning its place without redundancy.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and returns but lacks context on authentication, errors, or sibling differentiation. For a search tool in an e-commerce context, more behavioral guidance would improve completeness.

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 both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'query' relates to products and 'maxResults' affects output count, which is already clear from schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation.

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 action ('Search for products') and resource ('on Instacart'), with specific output details ('product names, prices, and availability'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'instacart_add_to_cart' by focusing on search rather than cart manipulation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'instacart_stores' which might also involve product discovery.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., login status), compare to 'instacart_stores' for browsing, or specify use cases like price checking versus availability lookup, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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