agenticfeed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It describes the core action (resolution + confirmation) but doesn't disclose error conditions (e.g., what if domain is invalid or no feed exists) or any potential side effects. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence provides the core purpose, and the second gives usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and 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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main use case but lacks detail on the output format (e.g., what the merchant_id looks like, structure of confirmation). It mentions 'returned merchant_id' but doesn't specify if it's a string or other type.

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 only parameter 'domain' has a schema description already covering 'Merchant website domain or URL'. The tool description merely adds an example. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal new 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 resolves a merchant's domain to an Agenticfeed merchant ID and confirms feed publishing. It uses specific verbs ('resolve', 'confirm') and distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'get_product' by indicating it should be called first when only the domain is known.

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 when to call this tool ('first when you only know a store's domain') and how to chain it with other tools ('use the returned merchant_id with get_product or the discovery feeds'). No ambiguity about prerequisites or 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 description must cover behaviors. It discloses the return type (schema.org Product) and lists fields, which is helpful. However, it omits behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, error handling, or rate limits, which are important for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and then lists return fields. No extraneous information, front-loaded with key details. Efficient and well-structured.

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 straightforward retrieval tool with only two required parameters, the description covers what it returns and the required inputs. It could be improved by mentioning error scenarios (e.g., what happens if product not found) or usage with sibling tool find_merchant, 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter explanations. The description mentions 'merchant_id and product_id' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves full detail for a single product by merchant_id and product_id, listing specific fields returned (name, price, currency, availability, image, buyer questions etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling find_merchant, which likely searches for merchants.

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?

Description implies usage: when you need full product details by IDs. It explicitly names the required identifiers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool comparisons beyond the sibling context.

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