FICKEL by FickelUSA

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine business context beyond that: the minimum order of 100 pieces and that ordering happens via email quote, which shapes how an agent should follow up.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb, resource and key, then lists return payload and ordering constraint. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the ordering constraint. Minor gaps remain: no guidance on invalid/unknown ids or whether the 100-piece minimum affects a mere read.

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 100% and the schema itself documents the 16-character hex pattern and its provenance ('Product id from search_catalog'). The description only says 'by id', adding nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get one FickelUSA product by id') and even enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly contrasts with search_catalog by emphasizing single-item retrieval by id, though it never names the sibling.

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 only implied: the id originates from search_catalog (noted in the schema, not the description), so the lookup-after-search flow is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, and request_quote is only hinted at via 'quote by email'.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by stating that no order is placed, no payment is taken, nothing ships, that the request is pending, that a reference number is returned, and that follow-up happens by email. This precisely characterizes the side effect of a non-destructive but non-read-only write, which the annotations alone could not convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the constraint, then the critical side-effect clarification. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description states what is returned (a reference number) and how follow-up occurs. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including the minimum-100 constraint that the description repeats. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or priority guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Send a quote request for a product to the FickelUSA team") plus the acting party ("on behalf of the person you are helping"). It is trivially distinguishable from get_product and search_catalog, which are read operations.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation: it is for the person you are helping, requires a minimum of 100 pieces, and the product_id schema field points back to search_catalog as the prerequisite step. There are no explicit exclusions (e.g. what to do for under-100 quantities), but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no repetition. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are capped at up to 10 per call and each hit contains id, name, category, image and product page link — return-shape information that matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one. The chaining hint comes last where it belongs, after the agent knows what the tool returns.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields plus the result cap is exactly the information an agent needs to decide whether one search suffices or multiple queries are required. A note on search matching breadth (keyword vs. fuzzy) or whether results are ranked would close the last gap, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100% with both parameters described (query examples, limit range and default), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the 10-result cap and adds no query syntax, matching behavior, or tokenization guidance beyond the schema examples.

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 a specific verb (search) plus the resource (FickelUSA custom promotional products) and enumerates the domain (logo apparel, drinkware, bags, hats, pens). It also names the downstream siblings get_product and request_quote, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

Clear context for when to call it (product discovery in the catalog) and explicit next steps ('use the id with get_product or request_quote'). It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast it with a browsing/listing alternative, but with only two downstream siblings, the routing is unambiguous.

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