CigarFinder

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the description's burden is lighter. It usefully adds result behavior — 'every available offer sorted by price, with savings calculations' — going beyond what annotations convey, though pagination or result-count limits are undisclosed.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return behavior, then the parameter routing rule. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately (offers sorted by price with savings). All parameters are optional, so nothing critical is missing, but the absence of guidance on empty results or missing product_id handling leaves a small gap.

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%, making 3 the baseline, but the description adds genuine routing semantics: product_id yields an exact match while cigar_name triggers a search. That is a selection rule the schema descriptions only partially hint at, so it earns an increment 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compare prices for a specific cigar across all retailers') and adds the scope of the comparison (all retailers, every offer). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_best_price, which an agent could easily confuse with a full price comparison.

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 parameter-selection guidance ('Use product_id for exact match or cigar_name for search') but never states when to reach for this tool versus get_best_price or search_cigars. Usage is implied by the purpose sentence rather than explicitly scoped.

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 (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add the data-source scope (all 20 CigarFinder retailers) and the return shape (best deal plus alternatives sorted by price). With no output schema, that return-ordering detail is genuinely useful added context, though permission/latency/caching behavior is unstated.

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, zero waste, with the core action and scope front-loaded followed by the return contract. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and return structure adequately. The one gap is that zero parameters are marked required, so it is unclear whether cigar_name is mandatory or whether query alone suffices; the description's 'for a specific cigar' hints at the intent but does not resolve it.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description mentions only that it targets 'a specific cigar', adding no syntax, format, or interaction guidance for cigar_name vs query.

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+resource (find lowest price for a cigar) and scopes it clearly to the 20 tracked retailers, plus names the return content. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling compare_prices, which sounds like an overlapping price-comparison capability, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 implied by 'for a specific cigar across all 20 retailers', but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus compare_prices or search_cigars, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The agent can guess the intent but is not routed.

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, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds that results include product counts, a small behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first, followed by illustrative examples. The category enumeration is slightly list-heavy but earns its place by previewing the return contents.

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 no-parameter browse tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (all categories plus product counts) and the annotations cover safety, so an agent has what it needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering or whether the list is static.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing about parameters to clarify and the description correctly does not invent any.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Browse all cigar categories') and enriches it with concrete category examples and a note about product counts, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_cigars or compare_prices, but the resource is distinct enough to be separable in practice.

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 agent can infer this is a discovery/listing step useful before searching or price-comparing. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_cigars or the price tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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 this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful freshness context ('Updated daily with verified codes'), but offers no further behavioral detail such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or result format.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded, and the freshness note adds value without padding.

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 simple read-only tool with annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return structure (e.g., what fields a coupon object contains), and with no output schema the agent gets only broad hints about what will come back.

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 three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 ('Get') and resource ('active coupon codes and promotional deals') with useful scope ('from top online cigar retailers'). It does not explicitly name or compare against any sibling tool, so it stops short of the full sibling differentiation a 5 requires.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_cigars or compare_prices. It only describes what is returned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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 (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context: real-time pricing, 80,000+ cigars across 20 retailers, plus the mandatory attribution and buy_url requirements. It stops short of describing pagination limits or result ordering behavior.

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 capability and scope, then filters, then the attribution requirement. Every sentence carries a distinct obligation and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 14-param, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool searches, the freshness of the data, and the critical attribution constraint. The main remaining gap is guidance on how to combine with sibling tools for price comparison.

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 already documents all 14 parameters with examples and formats. The description only names a subset of filters generically ('brand, shape, strength, wrapper, price range') and adds no syntax beyond 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Search the CigarFinder database of 80,000+ cigars') and names the scope and filter dimensions. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_prices or get_best_price, so an agent still has to infer the routing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this search versus the sibling tools (compare_prices, get_best_price, get_coupons). The only actionable instruction is attribution, which is compliance guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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