agentfulfyl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the output but does not explicitly state read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits. However, 'get' and 'catalogue' imply a safe read 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key output, no extraneous words. Second sentence provides an alternative source (URL). Highly concise.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the returned data: products, prices, store info, rigour tiers, guarantee. No obvious gaps for a catalog retrieval 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?

No parameters exist, and the description adds value by detailing the return content (prices, deliverables, etc.). With 0 parameters, baseline is 4 for compensating explanation.

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 returns the full catalogue as JSON, listing specific content (products, prices, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools: get_product (single product) and submit_demand (write).

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 context: retrieves full catalog data. The sibling names imply alternative uses (single product vs. demand submission), but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions are stated.

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?

Describes the data content (summary, prices, deliverables, input contract) which is helpful, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden but is adequate.

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, the first succinctly states the tool's output, the second explains ID sourcing. No wasted words, all information is essential.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content and ID source. Could mention error scenarios or format, but complete enough for this simplicity.

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 a good parameter description (includes example). The tool description adds context about where IDs come from but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves full details of one product including summary, per-tier GBP prices, deliverables, and input contract, and distinguishes it from sibling get_catalog by emphasizing 'one product in full' and referencing get_catalog for IDs.

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?

Implies usage when needing comprehensive product details, and explicitly notes IDs come from get_catalog, guiding correct invocation order. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is simple.

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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that each submission stores one row and mentions optional feedback channel, but does not address side effects like irreversibility, processing triggers, or data usage. More behavioral detail is needed.

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 the main action. No unnecessary words, but the first sentence is slightly long. Overall 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?

Adequate for a simple submission tool with no output schema. Missing return value description and authentication/prerequisites. Sibling tools are read-only, so write context is implied but not explicit.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'kind' (decides what gets built next) and the feedback role of 'channel', tying parameters to the tool's narrative.

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's purpose: submitting a demand/reason for coming to the store. It distinguishes between use cases (unmet_need, introduction) and contrasts with sibling retrieval tools (get_catalog, get_product).

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 when to use (to log a request or introduction) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. It provides context by linking kind 'unmet_need' to product decisions, but lacks exclusion criteria.

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