XFish Horgász Webáruház

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates it returns a category tree with fields, but doesn't disclose if it's read-only, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. Adequate for a simple list but lacks depth.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no unnecessary words. It achieves clarity with minimal 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete: it names the domain (XFish.hu webshop), indicates the return structure (category tree), and the schema covers parameters. Missing error cases or return size limits, but not critical.

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?

Both parameters (parent_id, webshop_id) are fully described in the input schema with descriptions and defaults. The tool description does not add additional 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 clearly states it lists categories and returns a category tree with specific fields (ID, name, parent, product count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_manufacturers or 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?

While the description makes it clear this is for fetching categories, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not explicit.

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?

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns manufacturer IDs, omitting information about read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, pagination, or whether it fetches all records. This is insufficient for transparency.

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, zero wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second links to another tool and specifies output value. Excellent conciseness.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage link. However, it is vague about the return format (e.g., whether it includes names alongside IDs) and does not mention the webshop_id parameter's effect on 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides; it does not elaborate on how the parameters affect output or provide usage 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists manufacturers/brands from the XFish.hu webshop and specifies that the output (manufacturer IDs) is needed for the search_products tool's manufacturer_id parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_categories and get_product_details.

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 provides clear context: the tool is used to obtain manufacturer IDs for filtering in search_products. It implicitly tells when to use it (before search_products with a manufacturer filter), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns detailed data but does not disclose that it is a read-only operation, whether errors occur for invalid IDs, or any side effects. While the name implies a read, the description could be more explicit about safety and 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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the purpose and key details without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and output fields. However, it does not mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., non-existent product), which would make it more 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context beyond the type by stating the product_id comes from the search_products tool's 'id' field. This provides valuable integration guidance, raising the score above the baseline of 3.

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 it queries detailed data of a given product and lists the fields returned (név, ár, leírás, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_products (which likely returns summary info) and get_categories/get_manufacturers (which handle different entities). The verb 'lekérdezése' (query) and resource 'termék' are specific.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when you have a product ID and need full details, but it lacks when-not scenarios or prerequisites. The schema description mentions the ID comes from search_products, which provides a hint, but overall guidance is minimal.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions Hungarian and English search support, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or return format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is obvious from the name and schema.

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, front-loading the tool's purpose and key search dimensions. Every word is useful; no redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is clear on search dimensions but omits expected return format (e.g., product list with fields). It does not address pagination beyond the limit parameter. It references category and manufacturer IDs from sibling tools in schema, but not in description. Adequate but incomplete for a fully informed agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a multilingual capability note not present in schema, but otherwise does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what schema already provides.

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 it's a product search tool for the XFish.hu fishing webshop and lists the search criteria (text, category, manufacturer, brand, price, stock). It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_categories, get_manufacturers, get_product_details) by its search focus.

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 searching products but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions category and manufacturer IDs referring to other tools in schema descriptions, but no explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternatives in the main description.

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