MamaChoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing the return shape (products list with fields, FAQ pairs with answers) — valuable since no output schema exists. It does not say how an unknown or malformed slug is handled, which keeps it from 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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Return one MamaChoice guide in full') and then the payload details. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the guidance pointer to search_guides is appropriately placed last.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back — products with pricing, links and delivery scope, plus FAQ answers — and the tiered annotations cover the safety profile. The only real gap is error/empty behavior for an unresolved slug, a minor omission for such a simple one-parameter read 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% and the single parameter's schema already states it accepts a slug (with an example) or a full URL. The description restates 'slug or URL' without adding format, normalization, or fallback semantics 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?

Specific verb (Return) plus a precisely scoped resource (one MamaChoice guide in full) and an enumeration of its contents: products with name, ₪ price, AliExpress link, and FAQs with answers. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_guides, which searches rather than retrieves a single guide.

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 routes the agent to the source of the identifier: 'Use the slug or URL from search_guides,' which establishes the search-then-fetch workflow and implicitly names the alternative. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g., when browsing many guides at once), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: live (non-cached) results from the external OneFindMe engine, Israeli delivery, shekel pricing, and multilingual query acceptance. It omits return shape/pagination, but with annotations carrying the risk profile the added context is solid.

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, front-loading the core capability before the routing hint. No filler; only 'through the OneFindMe engine' is arguably extraneous detail, though it does convey the source of results.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, where it ships, currency, language support and when to prefer it over the guides. Return-format details are the main omission, which is minor since results are product listings.

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 both parameters are documented there, including the example Hebrew query and the 1-15 range. The description's note that Hebrew or English is accepted adds slight meaning about the query parameter but nothing the schema example didn't already imply, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live search of AliExpress baby and parenting products') with clear scope: delivery to Israel, prices in ₪, Hebrew/English input. The final sentence explicitly separates it from the guide siblings, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

'Use when no guide covers the product' gives an explicit trigger condition and implicitly names the alternative (the guide tools in the sibling set). It stops short of stating when this tool is the wrong choice beyond that single condition, but the routing guidance is clear.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the response shape ('title, link, summary and a few of their products'), which matters because there is no output 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. The long parenthetical topic list is dense but earns its place by bounding the corpus; it could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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 read-only, two-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers domain, accepted languages, and return fields — everything needed to call it correctly. The only real omission is explicit disambiguation from get_guide and search_baby_products.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including examples and the 1-10 range for max_results. The description only reinforces that the query may be Hebrew or English and implies results are limited to a subset of products; the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 MamaChoice's Hebrew buying guides') and enumerates concrete topic areas (strollers, sleep, feeding, safety, travel), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the siblings get_guide or search_baby_products, leaving the search-vs-fetch and guides-vs-products distinction to inference.

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 agent can infer this is the discovery tool and that get_guide is for fetching a known guide, but no when-to-use/when-not statement or sibling reference is given. The note that queries are accepted in Hebrew or English is useful input guidance but is not routing guidance.

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