LivaGlow Shop

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the pricing model (first mug full price, subsequent mugs discounted, discount applies across different designs), that shipping may be free, and that it mirrors checkout maths before promo codes. It stops short of describing rounding, currency handling or rate behavior, so it is not a 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the output components; nothing is wasted. It is slightly run-on, which keeps it from being a model of structure, but the information density is high.

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 one parameter, full annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is computed, in what currency, and which figures are returned. The only minor gap is that promo codes and any limits on the quantity/order context are only implicitly addressed.

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 parameter's bounds (1-500) and meaning ('Number of mugs in one order') are fully documented there. The description's mention of discounts across different designs is a pricing rule rather than added meaning about the quantity argument itself, so this is correctly at the baseline where the schema does the work.

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 names a specific computation (exact price for a given number of mugs) and states the currency (EUR), which unambiguously separates it from every lookup-oriented sibling such as get_shop_overview or get_delivery_estimate. It also enumerates the components of the result (unit pricing, shipping, total), so the agent knows what the tool produces.

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 implied by the resource: call it when you need a price for a quantity of mugs. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over a sibling, nor any exclusion (e.g., promo-code pricing is out of scope, which is only hinted at by 'before any promo code'). The context is inferable but not spelled out.

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 declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is stored or ordered,' which is strong non-obvious context. It goes further with placement behavior ('texts are placed automatically (centred column) unless x/y are given'), template slot substitution ordering, and the hard constraint that photos cannot be passed in-band.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the deliverable leads, followed by the no-storage constraint and then the mechanics. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentences on placement/templates require careful reading and could be marginally tighter.

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 not be re-explained, and the description covers what an agent must know: the prerequisite call, the JSON-ish item ordering, automatic vs manual placement, template behavior, and the photo limitation. Nothing material is missing for a zero-required-parameter builder tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: automatic centring vs explicit x/y, ordered replacement of template text slots, and the rule to use photo:{shape} rather than passing an image. It does not, however, explain every parameter (e.g. background presets) in the prose.

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 deliverable: it turns a design description into a link that opens the LivaGlow designer pre-loaded with a finished draft. It enumerates the draft contents (texts, cliparts, background, photo placeholder, template), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_design_options (which only supplies valid values).

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite 'Call get_design_options first for valid fonts, cliparts and templates' and describes the end-to-end flow (customer opens link, checks 3D preview, uploads photo, orders). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool comparison (e.g. vs calculate_price), so it stops 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?

The annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by identifying the provenance and nature of the content ('as published on the product safety page'), implying a static, authoritative source rather than a computed or user-specific result.

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 no filler, and the parenthetical topic list efficiently communicates scope. Slightly dense, but every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: what it returns, its topics, and its source. It would be complete at 5 if it noted what happens when no care/safety content exists or how it relates to the FAQ/guide search 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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is a bare object, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies a single fixed scope with no filtering options.

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 names the specific resource (care instructions and safety warnings for the mug) and enumerates the concrete subtopics covered (dishwasher, microwave, thermal shock, damage). It is clearly distinguishable from pricing, delivery, and design siblings. It only loses a point for not explicitly contrasting itself with the content-retrieval siblings (search_faq, search_guides).

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named even though search_faq and search_guides could plausibly surface overlapping care content. Usage must be inferred entirely from the topic list.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the production start cutoff at 14:00 Berlin time on business days, the earliest/latest delivery date output, and the preferred-date hold-back rule.

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 purpose and needed operational detail. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence about checkout preferred dates is somewhat tangential to invoking this no-argument tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only estimate tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient return context (earliest/latest delivery date, cutoff rule, carrier and country scope). It could be slightly clearer on output format, but it is largely 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description mentions checkout preferred-date options, but those are not tool parameters and do not require schema documentation here.

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 resource and outcome: the expected delivery window for an order placed now, with clear scoping to Germany and UPS/DHL. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like calculate_price or get_shop_overview.

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 implies usage for delivery estimates in Germany with UPS/DHL and mentions a checkout preferred-date option, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives or when not to use it. The context is helpful but not a full routing guide.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the prerequisite role and content categories but does not disclose caching, rate limits, authentication, or return format specifics. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence that begins with the agent-facing purpose and then lists payload categories without filler. Every clause earns its place and no information is repeated.

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?

The tool is a no-parameter, read-only catalog with no output schema. The description enumerates the full set of data categories the agent can expect before calling create_design_link, and annotations cover safety. Nothing material is missing for 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe.

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?

Names the resource (design options) and enumerates the exact payload (fonts with style hints, text size range, background presets, photo shapes, clipart ids, templates with text slots, print-area geometry/limits), and explicitly scopes it as a prerequisite to create_design_link. This clearly distinguishes it from all siblings.

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?

States explicit context ('before create_design_link'), which tells the agent exactly when to call it. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but for a zero-parameter read-only catalog this is clear enough.

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, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the return representation (Markdown), the bounded set of acceptable paths, and that it returns full page content, which complements rather than contradicts 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and then provides the necessary path details. The path list is long but entirely relevant and formatted compactly with examples. Every part earns its place.

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 (one required parameter), rich read-only annotations, complete schema coverage, and the description's path enumeration plus output format, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly. An output schema is absent, but the description already communicates the return format.

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 provides only a minimal description ('Path starting with /') with 100% coverage, but the description adds substantial value by enumerating all supported paths (with dynamic :slug examples). This helps the agent construct valid parameter values far beyond what the schema alone offers.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('full content of a LivaGlow page'), and the output format ('as Markdown'). It enumerates valid paths, making the tool's scope unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling search/overview tools without opening the schema.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by listing all supported paths with concrete examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the path list effectively scopes usage and implies this is the tool for retrieving full page content rather than searching or computing prices.

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 by structured data. The description adds useful scope information (Germany-only shipping, fixed prices) but says nothing about staleness, caching, or how the fact sheet is structured beyond the topic list.

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 no filler, and the product identity is stated before the content list. The long comma-separated enumeration is dense but every item is informative, so it earns its length.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description's enumeration of returned topic areas is the main thing an agent needs, and it supplies that. A brief note on how it relates to the narrower siblings would make it 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for on this dimension.

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 the concrete content the tool returns (specs, fixed prices, volume discount, shipping, delivery, returns, photo requirements, URLs) for a named shop and product, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It is not a tautology, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_delivery_estimate, get_care_and_safety, or calculate_price, which cover overlapping topics.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many siblings whose subject matter overlaps (delivery, care/safety, pricing). The agent must infer that this is the broad orientation call rather than the specific one, with no exclusions or ordering advice given.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful substance on the read side by specifying the returned fields (TrustScore, review count, profile URL), but says nothing about freshness, caching, or behavior when the shop has no reviews. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource ('Current Trustpilot rating of the shop') and appends the returned fields in parentheses. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the description's main remaining job is to sketch the return value, which it does by naming TrustScore, review count and profile URL. It lacks any tie-breaker against get_shop_overview, which keeps it from a 5.

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 no parameter semantics for the description to carry. This is the baseline 4 for a no-argument tool; the sentence correctly implies no input is needed.

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 ('Current Trustpilot rating of the shop') and enumerates exactly what is returned (TrustScore, review count, profile URL). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling get_shop_overview, which is the only plausible overlap, so it falls short of 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?

The description says what the tool returns but never says when to reach for it versus get_shop_overview or get_care_and_safety. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

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 this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so safety is covered. The description adds content-level context (German/English URLs, a designer deep link that preselects templates), which is useful, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or ordering.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then packs the template examples and returned artifacts efficiently. The parenthetical enumeration makes it dense but every element earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description does part of the work by describing what is returned (URLs in two languages and the deep link). For a 0-param listing tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, this is close to complete, though the exact response shape remains unspecified.

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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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 names the resource (occasion landing pages) and enumerates the concrete templates it exposes (photo mug, birthday, couples, pet, Mother's Day, Christmas), so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like get_design_options or create_design_link despite the shared 'designer deep link' concept.

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: the catalog description suggests the tool is for browsing occasion-based template pages, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over create_design_link or get_design_options. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked best-matching questions returned with full answers and that content is German, which is genuinely useful context; it says nothing about result limits or pagination.

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; scope and language come first, then the return shape. The parenthetical topic list is dense but earns its place by signaling coverage. Slight awkwardness around the '(German)' placement.

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 search with no output schema, the description covers scope, language, and return shape adequately. It falls short only on guidance for choosing between this tool and topic-specific siblings like get_care_and_safety and search_guides.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'query' including that it accepts German or English. The description adds no syntax or formatting guidance 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 (keyword search) and resource (shop FAQ plus occasion-page FAQs) and enumerates covered topics. It distinguishes the general FAQ search from topic-specific siblings like get_care_and_safety and search_guides, though it doesn't explicitly route to them.

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?

Implied usage: an agent can infer this is for answering FAQ-style questions, and the topic list hints at coverage boundaries. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. siblings (e.g., get_care_and_safety or search_guides) or when-not-to-use statement.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the output shape (title, direct answer, URL) and the German-language limitation, which are useful beyond the annotations. It does not cover result limits or error handling, but it provides meaningful extra behavioral context.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource, then covering scope, topics, and return shape. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes the purpose immediately readable.

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 one-parameter read-only search with rich annotations, the description tells the agent what is searched, in which language, about which topics, and what the return fields are. Minor omissions such as result count or matching behavior are not critical for this simple tool.

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 input schema documents the single query parameter fully, including min/max length and German/English examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('LivaGlow guide articles'), a language qualifier (German), and a topical scope (printed mugs topics). It is distinguishable from siblings like calculate_price or search_faq because the resource type and content areas are specified, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 topical list (dishwasher safety, porcelain vs ceramic, etc.) implies when this tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. It never mentions search_faq for FAQ-type questions or calculate_price for pricing, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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