dopamine - the shop AI agents can buy from

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral transparency. It honestly states the tool is 100% fake, no payment occurs, and nothing real happens—clearly disclosing the joke nature and expected behavior.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with an explicit punchline and a follow-up suggestion. Every word adds value, and the key information (fake, returns order ID, next step) is front-loaded.

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 low complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and action flow without needing additional return value details.

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 description coverage is 50%, and the tool description adds meaning for the 'address' parameter by noting the package 'travels' in a whimsical sense. However, 'product_id' lacks additional context beyond the schema, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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: performing a fake purchase that returns an order ID. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_product, search_products, and track_order, making it easy for an AI agent to understand its unique role.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to simulate a purchase) and explicitly suggests calling track_order afterward. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the humorous context implies it's only for entertainment, providing adequate guidance for an AI agent.

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 exist, so the description must convey behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get details') which implies no side effects, but it lacks any mention of potential errors, return format, or other behavioral details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and usage hint.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it does and how to call it (using a valid id from search_products). Minor gaps like error cases are acceptable here.

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 one parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds valuable context by specifying that the id comes from search_products, clarifying the parameter's origin and expected value.

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 action ('Get details'), the resource ('product'), and the identifier ('by id'). It also references the source of the id ('from search_products'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like search_products.

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 this tool: only after obtaining a product id from search_products. This provides a clear workflow hint and differentiates it from other tools like buy or search_products.

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 description carries burden. Describes the tool as returning 'matching fake products' and hints that they are purchasable, but lacks detail on side effects, authentication needs, or any limits.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, lacks structured sections or bullet points that could improve clarity.

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 simple 2-parameter tool without output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: does not mention result format, pagination, or how to combine parameters.

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 covers 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (only query has a description). Tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for missing category description or usage context.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'dopamine catalog'. Distinguishes from siblings (buy, get_product, track_order) by focusing on searching rather than purchasing or retrieving specific items.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use search (e.g., use get_product for a specific product).

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 description carries full burden. It discloses the tool operates on a fast clock, requires multiple calls, and may simulate an order being 'eaten by a whale', adding whimsical but clear behavioral context.

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 purpose, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple fake tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and usage. Missing details about the return value or exact state transitions, but adequate for the toy context.

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 0% for parameter descriptions. The description only mentions 'by id', which adds minimal value beyond the schema's 'order_id' string type. No format, constraints, or examples are given.

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 tracks a fake order by id, using specific verb 'Track' and resource 'order'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like buy, get_product, and search_products, 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 advises calling multiple times due to the fast clock, providing a usage hint. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple tool.

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