KodShop catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does it well. It reveals the payment rail (USDC on Base/x402), account-free/browser-free operation, the two-phase behavior, that the first call is non-charging, and that the second call settles and delivers the code.

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 dense sentences front-load the core purpose and then describe the required two-call sequence without wasted words. Every clause adds useful information: product scope, payment method, no-account/no-browser constraint, and charging behavior.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential flow for a complex 9-parameter purchase tool: what to send on each call, what the first call returns, how payment works, and what the user receives. The schema fills in per-parameter conditional requirements, so the combined context is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics beyond the schema by explaining how order_id and payment_payload relate to the first and second calls, and clarifies that the first call returns payment requirements. This raises it above baseline.

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 names a specific action ('Buy'), the exact product categories ('gift card, service top-up or travel eSIM'), and the delivery outcome ('receive the code'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools get_product and search_catalog, which are lookup/pre-purchase steps in the same workflow.

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 gives explicit two-call usage instructions: first call with order arguments to obtain payment requirements and an order_id with no charge, second call with order_id and signed x402 payload to settle. It does not explicitly contrast buy_product with get_product/search_catalog, but the workflow is clear enough that an agent knows when this tool is the purchasing step.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the type of information returned, which is central to the tool's behavior. While it does not cover error handling or explicit read-only confirmation, the 'Get' verb strongly implies a safe read operation, and the description goes beyond a minimal restatement.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then efficiently lists the key returned data. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately communicates the primary purpose and the nature of the data returned, covering key details an agent needs to decide whether to invoke the tool. It omits potential edge-case behavior (e.g., not found), but this is not critical for basic use.

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 the 'id' parameter described as 'Product id from search_catalog.' The tool description adds no further parameter detail, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves one catalog product by ID and lists specific information returned (denominations, prices, required order inputs, redemption restrictions). It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_catalog by focusing on fetching a single item by ID rather than searching.

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 implies the tool is used when you have a specific product ID and need details, and the parameter schema further indicates the ID comes from search_catalog, establishing a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare with search_catalog in the description itself.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return fields (price, availability, product page URL), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'search'), any authentication needs, or rate limits. The disclosure is basic but not misleading.

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 sentences with no wasteful words. It front-loads the action ('Search') and efficiently specifies both the scope and the result fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 four optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (matching products with price, availability, and URL). It is complete enough for a search operation, though it could mention that get_product is available for detail retrieval, but that is not strictly necessary.

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 description coverage is 100% and all parameters have detailed descriptions, including the enum mapping for type. The tool description adds no additional parameter behavior beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool searches a catalog of gift cards, top-ups, and eSIM plans, and returns matching products with price, availability, and URL. It uses a specific verb and resource but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool get_product, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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 implies usage: it is for searching the catalog and returning matching products. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_product, nor any exclusions or alternative scenarios. This is implied usage without a clear decision framework.

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