Besot Music Fashion Resale

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description listing values is consistent. Description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence, 16 words, no redundancy. Verb-first, immediately clear. Every word 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?

Tool is simple (no params, no output schema). Description lists example facets and hints at dynamic nature via openWorldHint. Could mention return format or pagination, but not critical for this tool. Adequate overall.

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?

No parameters (0). Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 4 applies. Description correctly omits parameter info as none exist.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'List', resource 'distinct filter values', and enumerates categories (sizes, conditions, etc.). It differentiates from siblings (get_piece, list_collections, search_pieces) by specifying the distinct facet listing purpose.

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?

Description implies usage context: before searching, to get real filter values. No explicit when-not-to-use, but sibling tools have different purposes, making usage clear. Could add more explicit guidance but sufficient.

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?

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the tool returns cross-source listings and buy links. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, though it could mention that no modifications occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or padding. Every word serves a purpose.

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 the lack of output schema and minimal description, the tool's behavior is partially explained, but important details (like response format or pagination) are missing. For a simple retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meanings of collectionId or pieceId. The user must infer their roles from context, which reduces clarity.

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 a single piece with enriched data (cross-source listings and buy links). The verb 'get' and resource 'piece' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like search_pieces (search) and list_collections (list).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_pieces or get_facets. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for use.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about collection categories but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Every element contributes to understanding.

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 has 2 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains what is listed (collections with specific categories) but does not describe the return format (e.g., collection IDs, names, pagination). For a low-complexity listing tool, this is adequate but could be more complete.

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 has 2 parameters (type, artist) with 50% description coverage (only type has description). The tool description does not mention either parameter, missing an opportunity to clarify the artist parameter or specify valid values for type. The description's reference to collaboration types loosely aligns with the type parameter but provides no explicit guidance.

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's action 'List Besot collections' and specifies the types of collections (artist x designer collaborations, capsules, artist-founded brands). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like get_facets, get_piece, and search_pieces.

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 for listing collections but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool references are provided, though the sibling tools perform different operations (facets, single piece, search).

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, and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context about the return structure: cross-source listings with price, condition, size, color, and affiliate url. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 the complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main return structure and general search function. However, it lacks detail on pagination (limit default 20) and how parameters like minPrice/maxPrice interact, leaving minor gaps.

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 58%, which is moderate. The description adds general search context but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the meaning of minPrice/maxPrice or condition filters in detail.

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 and filters the Besot resale catalogue for musician-related clothing. It specifies the resource (pieces) and the action (search and filter), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_facets (for facet values), get_piece (single piece), and list_collections (collections).

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 for when to use this tool (to search/filter pieces), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or guide toward alternatives. Given sibling tools, the usage is implied but not stated.

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