sephora_search_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return data (product names, brands, prices, ratings, URLs) and the discovery purpose, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and returns, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with key information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for a search tool. It covers purpose, returns, and usage context, but lacks output format details (e.g., structure of returned data) and behavioral traits like limits or errors, which would enhance 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 all parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying a search functionality. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter details, though the description could have added context like example queries or category usage.

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 verb 'search' and resource 'Sephora beauty products', specifying it returns product names, brands, prices, ratings, and URLs. It distinguishes from siblings like sephora_get_product (detailed view) and sephora_add_to_basket (basket operations) by emphasizing discovery before detailed actions.

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 clear context: 'Use this to discover products before viewing details or adding to basket', which implicitly guides when to use this tool versus sephora_get_product or sephora_add_to_basket. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like sephora_get_rewards for rewards-related searches.

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