Givore

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the failure contract: a {"status": "unavailable"} sentinel for claimed, removed, non-public, or non-giveaway ids. It does not describe the successful response payload, which matters since no output schema 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the edge-case behavior. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool this covers purpose and the negative-case return well. The remaining gap is the success response shape, which is neither in an output schema nor in the description.

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% and the id parameter is already documented as coming from search_listings. The description adds no syntax, format, or provenance detail 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 and resource with scoping qualifiers: 'one live, public Givore giveaway listing by id'. The singularity distinguishes it from search_listings, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 call this versus search_listings, or on prerequisites such as needing an id from a prior search (that hint lives only in the schema). Usage is implied by the single-id framing but never stated.

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?

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: results are live and public only, restricted to Spanish cities, and returned newest-first. It stops short of covering pagination behavior or what an empty result set looks like.

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 resource and scope front-loaded and the sort order placed last as a secondary detail. Nothing repeats the tool name or 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?

For a three-parameter read-only search with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering and ordering adequately. A brief note on result shape or what happens with an unknown city slug would close the remaining 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%, so all three parameters are already documented with formats, defaults and clamping. The description reinforces the cardinality constraint ("one Spanish city", "one category") but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search ... Givore giveaway listings") with scope ("one Spanish city", "optionally ... one category") and ordering ("Newest first"). It is clearly distinguishable from get_listing by scope, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 when to use it (city-wide browsing, with optional category narrowing), and the schema restates that omitting category searches everything. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_listing or any exclusion/precondition guidance.

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