LifeVerse Product Discovery

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine context by disclosing that only already-published and immediately playable products are returned (i.e., drafts are effectively invisible) and that usage instructions ship with the response.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the visibility constraint front-loaded before the return-content note. Nothing to trim.

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 and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and it doesn't. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter lookup; the only omission is what happens when the slug is unknown or unpublished (error vs. empty result).

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 only one parameter and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage, including pattern and maxLength), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'public slug' phrasing confirms meaning but adds no format or failure-mode detail 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?

Stated as a specific verb (fetch/get) on a specific resource (a LifeVerse product) with a clear scope: public slug, published and immediately playable. The singular-by-slug framing implicitly separates it from lifeverse_list_products and lifeverse_search_products, but neither sibling is named.

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 — an agent can infer it should call this when it already has a slug rather than a query. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-search/list guidance and no stated prerequisites.

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 annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral scope by stating that in-development, beta, pricing, payment, and internal review information will not be returned. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the output schema exists to cover return structure.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key exclusion scope.

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 simple one-parameter list operation, rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. Its main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on choosing this tool over its sibling search and get tools.

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 100% description coverage and documents the single optional category filter with an enum. The description does not mention the category parameter or add any filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it lists LifeVerse products that are public and immediately available to experience. It also scopes the result by excluding development, beta, pricing, payment, and internal review information. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling tools lifeverse_get_product and lifeverse_search_products.

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 that this tool is for browsing public, ready-to-use products, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of lifeverse_search_products or lifeverse_get_product. No exclusions or prerequisites for use are stated beyond what appears in the returned data.

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 the useful behavioral constraint that only currently published and immediately experienceable products are recommended, which is real scope information not present in the annotations.

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 the triggering condition before the domain examples. The domain list is somewhat long, but each item helps an agent recognize a match, so little is wasted.

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 return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented with an enum and bounds. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete; 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 description coverage is 100%, with the need, limit (1-5, default 3), and category enum all documented inline. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond loosely implying what the need string should contain, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: recommend the best-matching option from LifeVerse's published, immediately experienceable AI products and interactive experiences. That clearly separates it from lifeverse_get_product (single lookup) and lifeverse_list_products (enumerate), though it never names those siblings 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?

It gives a concrete trigger (the user describes a problem, goal, or scenario) and lists domains such as life choices, business quotes, couples' disputes, and email marketing. It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or explicitly route to search_products/list_products for keyword or browsing-style requests.

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 the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a real constraint not in the annotations or schema – only public products that can be tried immediately are returned – but says nothing about result ranking or empty-result 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states scope and searchable facets with no filler. It is tight, though the very short length leaves the sibling relationship undiscussed.

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, parameter coverage is complete, and annotations carry the safety and world-boundary semantics, so the description only needs to convey purpose and scope, which it does. The remaining gap is guidance on choosing among the three sibling tools.

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, including the 1–10 range on limit. The description contributes the useful detail that query can target name, category, purpose, or capability, but adds no syntax or format guidance for the query string beyond the schema's examples.

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 (搜索) and resource (LifeVerse 产品), and narrows scope to published, immediately experienceable products plus the searchable facets (name, category, purpose, capability). It separates itself from lifeverse_get_product by being query-based rather than lookup-based, though the distinction from lifeverse_list_products is only implied.

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 keyword discovery, but never says explicitly when to prefer this over lifeverse_list_products or lifeverse_get_product. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so the agent must infer the routing from the verb alone.

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