apMZoomAI · Dongdaemun wholesale

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: contact details are never returned and buyers reach a stall via its store page, plus a defined no-filter default. It does not mention pagination or result-count limits, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 sentences, densely informative and front-loaded with the core purpose before the return fields and constraints. Every sentence carries signal, though the return-field enumeration is somewhat redundant given a dedicated output schema exists.

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?

For a filtered lookup tool with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and a present output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, filter semantics, default behavior, and a key limitation (no contact details). Nothing material 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds combinatoric meaning ('by stall name or stall number, and/or by building and floor') that clarifies how the filters interact, which the schema does not state. The lang parameter's effect on output is left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb (Find) and resource (stalls/shops), plus precise scope (Dongdaemun wholesale market on apMZoomAI) and the supported lookup keys (name, number, building, floor). An agent can immediately tell this is a stall-directory lookup distinct from product-oriented siblings like search_products or get_product.

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?

It clearly establishes when to use the tool (lookup by stall name/number and/or building+floor) and adds a useful default-behavior rule when no filters are supplied. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools such as list_buildings or get_new_arrivals, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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 cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world), but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the max-3-per-stall cap, the newest-first ordering, and notably that no prices are returned and the link must be followed for price/ordering.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, scope, filters, and return shape in three tight sentences. Mild redundancy where it restates schema defaults ('default 24, up to 168') keeps it short of a 5.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail returns, yet it still summarizes them and flags the important 'no prices' caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, so all five parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only light value (example category names, pointer to list_buildings) and repeats schema constraints like 'default 24, up to 168' rather than adding new semantics.

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 (list) and resource (newest wholesale items by Dongdaemun stalls) with scope, ordering, and cap ('newest first, at most 3 per stall'). It is clearly distinguishable from search_products/find_stalls by its time-window framing.

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: last N hours, optional building and category filters, and routes the agent to list_buildings for building keys. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_products, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an error is returned if the item is no longer listed, and the response omits pricing, capping photos at 3. That is useful context beyond the annotations, though response shape details are partially left to the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the id source, followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields and two short constraint sentences. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the returned-field list overlaps with what the output schema likely conveys.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining essentials: valid id provenance, failure mode (delisted item), and the no-price caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, lang) are documented in the schema, including the id source and the enum/default for lang. The description reinforces the id provenance but adds no format, syntax, or lang behavior beyond the schema, so the 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 (get) and resource (one wholesale item) with scope ('by the id'), and enumerates the returned fields (name, photos, category, stall location, link). It also names the sibling tools that produce valid ids, so an agent can distinguish it from search_products and get_new_arrivals without opening a schema.

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 clearly establishes the calling context: the id must come from search_products or get_new_arrivals. It also proactively rules out a likely expectation by stating 'No prices are provided; the link shows price and ordering details.' It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the routing context is clear.

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 and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the recency window for new items (last 7 days) and notes that hours/address/description are only returned 'where known', which sets expectations about sparse fields.

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 domain scope is front-loaded in the first clause and the downstream-usage instruction is a short, separate second sentence. The first sentence is dense with a colon-delimited field list, but every element earns its place and there is 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it does describe them anyway. Combined with the scope, the field expectations and the key-reuse instruction, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only the silent language parameter is left unaddressed in prose.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including its enum values and default, so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions the language parameter or its effect on returned labels, adding no meaning beyond the schema; 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 (List) and resource (buildings) with a tightly scoped domain: Dongdaemun/Seoul wholesale fashion buildings covered by apMZoomAI. It also enumerates what each record contains (stalls in business, new items in last 7 days, hours, address, description), which clearly separates it from the stall- and product-oriented siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use the returned building key as the building filter of the other tools, which establishes this as the entry-point tool in the workflow. It lacks any when-not guidance or a named alternative for cases where a building key is already known, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the returned fields, the fact that pricing/ordering must happen via the item link, and that only currently operating stalls appear. It could still say more about ranking or result ordering.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope before the caveats about price and stall status. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the return-field enumeration slightly overlaps the output 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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, yet it succinctly previews them. Combined with the price caveat and active-stall constraint, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only explicit sibling routing 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%, so query, lang, limit, and building are all fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of supported languages and 'keywords only, not a whole message' largely restates the schema, so it sits at the baseline rather than adding new meaning.

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) and resource (wholesale fashion items listed by stalls in Dongdaemun), with concrete scope: market, city, and platform. An agent can distinguish this from find_stalls, get_product, and get_new_arrivals immediately.

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 ('short keywords in any language') and an important exclusion: only in-business stalls are returned and prices are not available here. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives such as get_product for full item detail or get_new_arrivals for recent listings, so routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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