product-intelligence

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as the recording start date (2026-07-27) meaning earlier days are empty, and that prices are integer minor units. This helps set expectations without contradicting 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?

The description is three sentences, with the core function first, followed by usage guidance and a data caveat. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 tool's low complexity (2 required params), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and an important data availability detail, making it fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with descriptions for both product_id (from search_products or get_product) and country (enum with valid countries). The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it returns the daily lowest observed price for a product over the last year in one country. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools get_product and search_products, which focus on product details and search, not historical price data.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to judge whether a current price or a claimed discount is actually good — compare today's price against the recent minimum.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, so it's strong but not fully complete.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the response is the product with its best offer, and that offer is country-scoped. Still silent on failure modes (invalid GTIN, product not carried in a country), which keeps it short of 5.

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 identity and lookup form, then usage condition, then return shape. No filler and no repetition of schema content beyond what is needed.

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 structure need not be spelled out, and the description correctly limits itself to the offer/country nuance. The only uncovered item is the language parameter's effect on returned text, which the description never mentions.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning the schema lacks by explaining why country is required ('offers and prices are country-specific'), which is the key semantic for choosing that enum value. The id formats it restates are already in the schema, so it does not fully carry the undocumented language parameter.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Look up one product') and names the two accepted identifier forms (GTIN/EAN/UPC or Ponito product id). Combined with the singular 'one product' framing, an agent can immediately distinguish this from the sibling 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?

Provides clear positive guidance: 'Use this when you already know exactly which product you mean — e.g. from a barcode, a previous search result, or a product page.' That implicitly excludes the search path but never names search_products or states the exclusion explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape (GTIN-anchored results, best offer, shop count) and the price format (integer minor units), which an agent otherwise could not infer from the annotations. It stops short of noting result-cap or pricing caveats.

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 tight sentences: purpose, when to call, and what comes back. Nothing is wasted and the identity of the resource is front-loaded in the first four words.

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 a full output schema, rich annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the only missing piece was intent and result shape, both of which the description supplies. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 clear descriptions and enum values for sort, limit, country, and language, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about parameter usage or interactions (e.g., sort vs. limit trade-offs), 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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Search Ponito's product catalogue") and the closing sentence states what results contain (GTIN-anchored products with best offer and shop count). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts against the sibling tools get_product and get_price_history, which is what would push this to a 5.

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 explicit usage contexts: "finding products, comparing options, or checking who sells something in a given country." That is strong when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling lookup/history tools for narrower needs.

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