SeekAPI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key safety behavior: read-only, no provider call, no payment. However, it does not describe what the discovery result contains beyond the listed facets, nor does it mention failure behavior or rate limits; the output schema exists but does not substitute for semantic 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, with the action and scope front-loaded and the safety qualifier placed at the end. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential selection context: what capability it covers and that it will not make a provider call or incur payment. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly instructing to use it before invoking product_detail_v0, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% for an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover and inspect') and names the exact resource ('SeekAPI capability product_detail_v0'), then enumerates the facets it covers: identity, agent job, contract, pricing, runtime, failure, trust, and invocation. It also distinguishes itself from invoke_* siblings with 'Read-only; no provider call or payment.'

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 phrase 'Read-only; no provider call or payment' clearly signals this is for inspection rather than execution, which is useful usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives like invoke_product_detail_v0 or other discover_* tools, but the sibling list and capability name make the intended context reasonably clear.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and clearly discloses that the tool is read-only, causes no provider call, and triggers no payment. It also communicates that the returned information covers contract, pricing, runtime, failure, and trust, giving the agent a realistic expectation of what the tool does.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists covered aspects efficiently. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool is for, what it will not do, and what dimensions of the capability it reports. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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?

The input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters needing explanation. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description is adequate without adding parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Discover and inspect') and resource ('SeekAPI capability product_keyword_search_v0'), and enumerates the aspects covered. It clearly distinguishes this discovery tool from the sibling invoke_* tools.

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 notes it is read-only and makes no provider call or payment, signaling when to use it as an inspection step before invocation. It does not explicitly name the invoke_* siblings, but the read-only framing plus sibling names make the intended use clear.

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?

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no provider call or payment,' which communicates the core behavioral trait (no side effects, no cost). It also enumerates the scope of what can be inspected (identity, contract, pricing, etc.), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are less critical for a read-only discover 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence identifies the tool and its purpose with a precise enumeration of inspection dimensions. The second sentence adds the critical behavioral qualifier ('Read-only; no provider call or payment'). No wasted words, and structure supports quick parsing.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the behavioral contract and the scope of inspection. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly naming the companion invoke tool or stating 'use this to evaluate before invoking,' but it is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Per the baseline for 0 params, this is a 4. The description's list of inspected aspects (e.g., pricing, runtime, failure) adds contextual richness but is not needed for parameter understanding. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 identifies the resource ('product_public_offer_snapshot_v0') and the action ('Discover and inspect' a capability). It distinguishes from sibling discover tools by naming the specific capability, and the 'Read-only; no provider call or payment' line clarifies this is a metadata inspection rather than an invocation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with invoke tools, but the verb choice makes the distinction apparent.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated. The description says 'Read-only; no provider call or payment' which suggests this is for discovering/inspecting rather than executing, but it never explicitly says 'when to use this vs invoke_* tools' or names siblings as alternatives. An agent can infer the appropriate use case, but the guidance is not explicit.

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 present, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only nature, no provider call, and no payment, and lists the behavioral scope of what will be inspected: identity, contract, pricing, runtime, failure, trust, and invocation. This is meaningful transparency beyond the empty input 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the tool, lists its inspection scope, and states the key behavioral constraint. Every phrase 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?

For a zero-parameter discovery tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what will be discovered, confirms no side effects or cost, and the output schema presumably defines the return contract. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The zero-parameter baseline applies, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 ('Discover and inspect') and a specific resource ('SeekAPI capability seller_public_profile_v0'), and enumerates what the discovery covers. It also differentiates from invoke_seller_public_profile_v0 by declaring it read-only with no provider call or payment.

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 clearly establishes this tool is for inspection/discovery rather than execution, saying 'Read-only; no provider call or payment.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to choose discover vs invoke, but the context is strong and unambiguous.

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 the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no provider call or payment,' which is a meaningful safety and side-effect guarantee for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool. It does not detail failure modes or auth requirements, but for a zero-parameter metadata discovery tool, the most important behavioral trait is covered.

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 compact sentence with a front-loaded purpose and a clear safety qualifier. The enumerated aspects are dense but each adds useful scope information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero parameters, a rich output schema, and a discovery-only role, the description covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what aspects it exposes, and the crucial fact that it is read-only with no provider call or payment. Nothing essential is missing for safe and 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the input contract. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Discover and inspect SeekAPI capability shop_product_page_v0'. It then enumerates the exact facets covered (identity, contract, pricing, failure, trust, invocation), and the 'Read-only' note clearly separates this discovery tool from the invoke_* siblings. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is for discovering and inspecting a capability, not for executing it. 'Read-only; no provider call or payment' provides a boundary that implies when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name invoke_shop_product_page_v0 as the alternative for actual execution.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key synthetic/sandbox-only behavior and absence of real payment. It does not address side effects, error behavior, or authorization, though for a read-style retrieve operation the main caveat is covered.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. The required field list is stated twice, creating mild redundancy, but overall it is 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?

Given the opaque request schema, the description provides the required fields and sandbox context, while the output schema covers the return shape. The vague 'capability id field(s)' and lack of field value examples leave some ambiguity, but the tool is simple enough to call correctly with this information.

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 exposes only an opaque 'request' object with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage, so the description's enumeration of required fields (schema_version, data_mode, fixture_id, item_id) is essential and partially compensates. It does not define value formats or clarify 'capability id field(s)', so it is not a 5.

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 states a specific action ('retrieve') and resource ('product detail') for a single item id, and clarifies it is synthetic and sandbox-only. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling discover_product_detail_v0, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear context: sandbox-only, no live provider call, no real payment, and enumerates required request fields. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses that results are synthetic, the call is sandbox-only, and no live provider call or real payment occurs. It does not cover error handling or authorization, but the safety-critical behavior is explicitly stated.

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 short and front-loads the main behavior before the request instructions. The two required-field statements are slightly repetitive and awkwardly inconsistent, but there is minimal filler.

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 tool with a very sparse input schema and no annotations, the description provides key safety context and a required-field list, but the imprecise 'capability id field(s)' and missing field semantics leave an agent unable to construct the request with full confidence. The output schema helps, but request construction remains under-specified.

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 only defines a generic request object with 0% field coverage, and the description compensates by naming required fields: schema_version, data_mode, fixture_id, query, limit. However, it leaves 'capability id field(s)' vague and does not explain each field's format or allowed values, and the second sentence's parenthetical omits query and limit.

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 identifies a product keyword search that returns bounded synthetic product candidates from a keyword intent, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this invoke tool from discover_product_keyword_search_v0, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 states the sandbox-only execution context and explicitly declares no live provider call and no real payment, giving clear conditions for safe use. It also lists the required request fields and instructs passing the full request object, though it does not mention when to prefer this over the discover_* sibling.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: sandbox-only, no live provider call, no real payment, and the synthetic/bounded nature of the snapshot. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but those are less critical for a read-only sandbox snapshot.

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 reasonably compact and front-loads the resource, but the opening sentence largely repeats the tool name and the final sentence repeats the required-field list from the previous sentence. The vague 'capability id field(s)' also adds ambiguity without adding 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 tool with a generic schema and no annotations, this description provides important fixture and sandbox context and names the required request fields. However, it does not clarify the discover/invoke split among siblings or explain what 'capability id field(s)' means, so an agent could still be unsure which sibling to use. The output schema covers return semantics, so that gap is acceptable.

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 only exposes an opaque request object with additionalProperties true, so the description must compensate for zero schema coverage. It lists the required nested fields (schema_version, data_mode, fixture_id, item_id) and instructs the caller to pass the full request object, which is essential. It stops short of providing types, formats, or a precise definition of the vague 'capability id field(s)'.

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 identifies the resource ('public offer') and the action ('snapshot') for a single item id, and adds that it is sandbox-only and synthetic. It does not explicitly contrast with the discover_* sibling for the same public-offer resource, so differentiation relies mostly on the tool name.

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 states this is sandbox-only, makes no live provider call, and involves no real payment, which gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sandbox/synthetic framing is strong enough to guide selection.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden; it discloses that the call is synthetic, sandbox-only, and involves no payment or live provider call. It stops short of explaining 'bounded' or failure behavior, but for a read-only sandbox retrieval this is meaningful transparency.

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 short and front-loaded, but it repeats the required-field list and the 'seller public profile' concept. The parenthetical '(schema_version, data_mode, fixture_id, and the capability id field(s))' is redundant after the required-fields sentence and adds confusion rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The description covers purpose, sandbox context, and required request fields, but the ambiguous 'capability id field(s)' and the lack of any guidance on how to populate values leave an agent needing to infer request construction.

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 input schema is an opaque 'request' object with additionalProperties: true and no inner property descriptions (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It lists the required fields (schema_version, data_mode, fixture_id, seller_id) but the later phrasing 'the capability id field(s)' is ambiguous and no value formats or allowed values 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?

Description opens with the resource name and uses a specific verb ('retrieve') plus a clear scope: 'bounded synthetic public profile for a single seller id.' It also flags 'Sandbox-only, no live provider call, no real payment,' which separates it from the live/discover siblings. This is enough for an agent to know what it does.

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?

It explicitly states when this tool applies ('Sandbox-only') and what it does not do ('no live provider call, no real payment'). It does not name a specific sibling alternative such as discover_seller_public_profile_v0, so the routing 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is sandbox-only and no live payment occurs, which is useful. However, it doesn't state what the return payload looks like, whether it mutates state, or any rate limits. Given the output schema exists, the return format may be covered, but the mutation safety is unmentioned. The sandbox-only note helps, but more insight could be given on side effects.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage constraints (sandbox-only, required fields) in the second sentence. It's efficient and no redundant words. However, the list of required fields could be considered necessary details, so it's not overly diffuse.

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 has an output schema and some constraints (sandbox-only), the description partially covers needed info. The required fields are listed, and the sandbox nature is clear. However, it doesn't explain how this relates to discover siblings, nor does it detail the output contract beyond what the schema might already define. For a single-parameter tool with nested object, the description could be more complete about what the request should contain.

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 input schema has no descriptions for the 'request' object's internal fields (additionalProperties true), and the schema coverage is 0%. The description does mention the required fields (schema_version, data_mode, fixture_id, shop_id, limit) and instructs to pass the full object including capability id fields, but it doesn't explain what each field means or what values to use. This barely compensates for the schema gap, and with no enums or details, the agent is left guessing.

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 states a clear verb ('list') and resource ('bounded synthetic product page for a single shop id'), and mentions it's sandbox-only. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'discover_shop_product_page_v0' which likely has a similar purpose but different action style. The phrase 'bounded synthetic' hints at constraints but the distinction from discover tools is implicit.

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 says 'Sandbox-only, no live provider call, no real payment,' which clearly indicates it's for testing. It also lists required request fields, but it does not name alternatives or explain when to use this vs a 'discover' variant. It implies usage but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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