TATUAT.RO — Tattoo & Piercing Supplies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the result shape (price in RON, availability, direct link) and the semantic of omitting category_id (falls back to the full catalog). Why it isn't higher: no note on pagination limits beyond what the schema states.

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 what the tool returns, then when to use it, then the follow-up tool. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler or repetition of the name.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, usage condition, fallback behavior and the natural next step, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 all four parameters (sort, limit, offset, category_id) are already well documented in the schema. The description's only added nuance is the whole-catalog fallback for a missing category_id, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Întoarce o pagină de produse dintr-o categorie tatuat.ro') plus the scope fallback (whole catalog when no category_id). It also names the fields returned (price in RON, availability, product link), so an agent can distinguish it from get_product and search_products without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition (client wants to see what's available in a category, or wants the most popular/cheap/expensive/new products) and routes to the follow-up tool get_product for a single item. It does not explicitly contrast with search_products, which is the closest sibling, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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 a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds genuine behavior: it reads real catalog prices, variant pricing requires variant_id from get_product, and an unconfirmed product/variant aborts the calculation entirely with no partial total. That failure-mode disclosure exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then input rules, then usage trigger. Every sentence carries information, though it runs long and could tighten the variant/unconfirmed sentences.

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 an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: input exclusivity, variant sourcing, and abort-on-unknown behavior. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%; the schema already documents slug/product_id/variant_id, quantity, and the lines-or-subtotal exclusivity that the description repeats. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond what is already structured, 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?

States a specific verb (Calculează) and three concrete outputs: shipping cost, free-shipping threshold, and gifts reached at the threshold, scoped to a tatuat.ro cart. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_product or create_checkout.

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 names the triggering situations — customer asking about shipping cost or how much more is needed for free shipping/a gift. It also guides the lines-vs-subtotal choice, though it does not name a competing sibling tool to route away from.

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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — the link is time-limited and contains no prices, with final pricing confirmed on-site. It does not, however, flag that repeated invocation yields distinct links (the non-idempotent consequence), which would be the remaining useful disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentences: what it produces, its key constraints (limited validity, no prices), then when to use it. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, constraints and routing. The only mild gap is the absence of any note on repeated-call behavior for a non-idempotent link generator, but otherwise it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 sole 'items' parameter is richly documented in-schema (qty bounds, options limits, product_id provenance). The description only lists the cart contents generically, adding no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb (Generează) and resource (link semnat către checkout-ul tatuat.ro) with the cart scope (produse, variante, cantități, opțiuni) spelled out. It also names the sibling tools it is not (search_products/get_product), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 gives the triggering condition ('Folosește acest tool când clientul e decis să cumpere') and the alternative path ('pentru a găsi produse sau prețuri folosește search_products/get_product înainte'). The when/when-not and the prerequisite step are both stated outright.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the found=false-not-an-error contract and the fact that prices include pre-discount context and per-variant stock.

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 return scope followed by usage and edge-case handling; no filler. The field enumeration is dense but each item maps to real output, so it earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the key fields and covers the slug-provenance and not-found semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 single parameter's format (slug from search_products or the /product/ URL, without prefix) is already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the same source hint, adding little beyond it – baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Întoarce fișa completă a unui produs de pe tatuat.ro după slug') plus an enumeration of the returned fields (nume, descriere, preț în RON, disponibilitate, link, brand, variante). It also implicitly differentiates itself from search_products by consuming its output.

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 tells the agent where the argument comes from ('Folosește slug-ul întors de search_products') and defines the non-error branch when the slug doesn't match an active product. It gives no exclusion against siblings like get_stock or browse_category, so it stops short of a 5.

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 it a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true; destructiveHint false), so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it enumerates the four return states (full availability, partial with preorder remainder, full preorder, quantity at cap) and notes it returns client-safe text, which is more than the annotations give.

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?

Front-loads the verb and the core scope, then appends the return-state summary and the client-safe-text note. Both sentences earn their place, though the enumeration of four states is somewhat dense for a single sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, yet the description still summarizes the four states helpfully. With 100% param coverage and full annotation coverage, the definition is complete enough for correct invocation; nothing essential is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description dwells on the product/variant relationship and qty intent, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already documents for slug, variant_id, and qty.

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+resource (check the real availability of a product or variant for a requested quantity) and scopes it precisely to tatuat.ro, using the slug returned by search_products. An agent can distinguish this from get_product (details) or search_products (discovery) without opening either schema.

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 tells the agent to use the slug returned by search_products, which routes from the discovery sibling, and frames the qty input as what the client wants to order. It lacks an explicit when-not or a stated alternative such as get_product, so it stops short of a 5.

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 it read-only, idempotent, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable workflow context by telling the agent the result feeds into get_product via the returned slug, though it doesn't describe pagination or result limits beyond the 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?

Front-loads purpose and return shape in the first sentence, then usage conditions and the follow-up tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, yet the description still names the key fields. Combined with clear usage routing and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter descriptions already carry examples and the two-character minimum, so the description mainly restates the searchable fields (nume, brand, tip). It adds little beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Specifies the exact verb (Caută), resource (catalogul tatuat.ro), searchable fields (nume, brand, tip de produs) and what it returns (preț în RON, disponibilitate, link). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_product and browse_category.

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 use it (when the client asks if a product exists, how much it costs, or what options exist) and routes to the alternative: use get_product afterward with the returned slug for a specific product's details.

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