Dercora

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network profile is covered without help from the text. The description adds the useful detail that ALL merchant offers are returned, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether offer availability varies by the ships_to country.

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?

One dense sentence that leads with the action and result payload, followed by a short clause on parameter provenance. Zero filler and nothing important is buried.

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 an output schema present, the return payload need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that it never explains the effect of the optional `ships_to` filter, which is the one piece of behavior an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 `id` and `ships_to` are already documented in the schema, and the description merely restates the `id` provenance. It never mentions `ships_to` or how it affects which offers/prices come back, so it adds 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 (get) and resource (one product), then enumerates exactly what comes back: description, highlights, specs, and every merchant offer with seller, price, availability, and buy link. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_products by declaring that `id` originates there.

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 clause "`id` comes from search_products" establishes the required upstream step and implicitly routes the agent to that sibling for discovery. It does not state when not to use this tool or what to do if the product is unavailable, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond them: pagination via nextCursor and the fact that prices/availability are contingent on ships_to. It stops short of describing result caps or the limit ceiling of 20, which lives only in the 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by return fields and the two actionable hints. Tight overall, with only mild duplication of schema detail (ISO country phrasing for ships_to).

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 explaining return values is not strictly required, and the description does so anyway without harm. Combined with annotation coverage and 86% schema descriptions, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the sibling-routing question remains unanswered.

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 86%, so the schema already documents query, cursor, currency, ships_to, min/max price and limit. The description's parameter mentions (ships_to ISO country, nextCursor) largely restate the schema rather than adding format or edge-case meaning, 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 and resource ('Search products from independent Shopify merchants') and describes the return shape (display price, store count, Dercora url, merchant buyUrl). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_product, so an agent must infer that this is the multi-result search vs. the single-item lookup.

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 practical invocation hints ('Pass ships_to so prices and availability match the buyer', 'Use nextCursor for more results'), which is real guidance. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of get_product, nor any exclusions, so the routing decision is only implied.

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