Lupamundo

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's main addition is characterizing the returned content (Markdown, tables, sources, access dates) – useful but partly redundant given an output schema exists. No auth, rate-limit, or failure behavior is disclosed.

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 resource named first and the return characteristics second; there is no filler and every clause carries 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 single-parameter read with rich annotations and an output schema, this is close to adequate. The remaining gap is that it never links to search_guides as the way to obtain a URL, nor states any failure behavior for invalid or off-domain URLs.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, with the schema already stating it takes 'A lupamundo.com page URL'. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation nuance beyond what the schema provides, 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+resource: retrieves the full text of one Lupamundo page, with the content format (Markdown, tables, official sources, access dates) spelled out. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_guides or recommend, leaving the agent to infer that this is the fetch-one-page-by-URL tool.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names the alternatives. It is implied that this is the retrieval step after search_guides, but the agent is not told that or given any exclusion conditions.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety semantics. It adds useful context beyond annotations by describing the returned recommendation details, including who each product is not for, price, and partner link, plus the fallback behavior when no recommendation 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 compact and front-loaded: it first defines the product recommendation output and then states the fallback behavior. Every clause adds useful information, with no repetition of structured fields.

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 rich annotations, a full schema with descriptions, and an existing output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to select the tool: product scope, included recommendation details, and fallback behavior. The main remaining gap is that sibling alternatives for the fallback are implied rather than named, but the core behavioral context is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the required 'need' parameter is already documented with an example. The description does not add meaningful semantics for the optional 'country' parameter or clarify how country affects recommendations, so it stays at the baseline provided by 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns recommended products for a user need, with named categories (language courses, exam prep, eSIM, kit items) and per-item fields. It is clearly distinguishable from the guide-oriented siblings because it also explains that guide results are only a fallback when no product pick exists.

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 makes the main usage condition clear: call it when the user has a need and you want Lupamundo's product picks. It also defines the fallback path to guides when no pick exists, though it does not explicitly name get_guide or search_guides as the alternatives to use in that fallback case.

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. The description adds that results cite evidence and returns titles, short answers, update dates, and links, but it does not add deeper behavioral details such as auth or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. The parenthetical topic list is long but useful for scoping the search domain.

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 the description need not fully explain return values. Still, it omits sibling routing guidance and does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 67%; query and country are documented, while limit is not. The description conceptually reinforces the question and country dimensions but does not explain the limit parameter or add syntax details 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: find Lupamundo guides. It gives clear topical scope and even return contents, but it does not explicitly distinguish this search from sibling tools get_guide or recommend.

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 by saying guides answer questions across listed topics. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with get_guide and recommend.

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