PeptoClinic store

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: nothing is charged or reserved until the buyer pays on the checkout page, which clarifies the side-effect boundary of the operation.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose and payment behavior front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and side-effect behavior. Minor gaps remain around link expiration, prerequisites, or return shape, but nothing critical prevents correct invocation.

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 50%, and the description adds useful meaning by noting one or more products and the 1-10 vials-per-product limit. It still leaves the country parameter and nested size defaults to the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: quoting an order and returning a checkout link. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_products or store_info.

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 implied usage is clear: use this when a buyer needs a checkout link to pay. However, the description does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, even though list_products is a natural prerequisite for obtaining product IDs.

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 fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is the return shape (ids, per-vial pricing, buy links, multi-size grouping) — useful since no output schema exists — but it says nothing about ordering, result count, or how the buy link relates to create_checkout_link.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the most important detail (that multi-size products collapse under 'sizes') is stated up front. Minor awkwardness in phrasing but nothing 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 single-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers the return shape that the absent output schema would otherwise leave unknown, and annotations cover safety. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 single country enum is fully documented, including currency implications (ARS vs USD). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 identifies the resource precisely (peptide vials with id, vial size, price, buy link) and the sibling tools (create_checkout_link, store_info) do not overlap, so the agent can tell this is the product catalog read. However, the verb is only implied by the name/title — the sentence reads as a return-shape description rather than stating 'lists products' 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus anything else, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The sibling tools are unrelated enough that confusion is unlikely, but the description provides no routing guidance at all.

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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the topic list is the only signal about what data comes back, which is genuine added value. However, nothing is said about format, granularity, or freshness of the returned content.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words, but it is a sentence fragment that reads like a table-of-contents entry rather than a statement of purpose. Brevity is achieved at the cost of grammatical clarity.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup there is little to explain, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with no output schema the description should say plainly what the agent gets back (policy text, contacts, review summaries) — the topic list only gestures at 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The topic list does usefully scope what this parameterless call returns.

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 enumerates topic areas (shipping, payment methods, physician review, quality testing, contact) which conveys what the tool surfaces, but it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, so it never states that it *returns* or *retrieves* this information. The name/title 'store_info' / 'Store information' is itself ambiguous between 'shop information' and 'to store information', and the description does not resolve that.

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 the siblings create_checkout_link or list_products, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is a general FAQ/policy lookup.

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