Retrieve full details for a Salvage & Surplus product by SKU. Example SKUs: GR-001, GR-002, GR-003, GR-004, GR-005.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Retrieve' implies a safe read-only operation, and 'full details' sets expectations. However, it does not disclose any edge cases, error behavior, or authentication requirements. The description adds some context (domain, example SKUs) but is minimal.
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: the first states the action and resource, the second provides example SKUs. Every word is useful; it is compact and front-loaded with the primary verb.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema present, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It provides enough to understand the tool's purpose and input format. A slight gap is the lack of relationship to sibling tools, but that's more of a usage-guideline issue.
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 has no description for the 'sku' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying the lookup is by SKU and provides concrete examples (GR-001, GR-002, etc.), which gives the agent the exact format for a valid input.
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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('Salvage & Surplus product'), and the lookup key ('by SKU'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_cart or search_products, all of which have different purposes.
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 when you have a SKU and need full product details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_products. No when/when-not or alternative guidance is provided, only an implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct role: product discovery (search_products, get_product), cart management (add_to_cart), and payment processing (checkout, confirm_payment). The sequential flow is clear and there is no overlap between tools.
Most tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (add_to_cart, confirm_payment, get_product, search_products). 'checkout' deviates slightly as a single verb, but it is still clear and follows the same overall style.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a simple purchase workflow. Each tool is necessary for the core flow of searching, viewing, adding to cart, and completing a purchase.
The purchase lifecycle is covered end-to-end: search, retrieve details, add to cart, checkout, and confirm payment. Minor gaps exist such as no update/remove cart functionality, but these do not block the primary workflow.