Housewarming Kit – hand-picked gift ideas

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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only and is open-world, while the description adds meaningful behavioral context: an editToken is required, and token storage may return a new id that bookmarks should be updated with. It does not cover error behavior, but the auth and token-rotation details are valuable beyond the annotations.

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, starting with the core action before prerequisites and payload details. Every sentence carries useful information for invocation.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential auth, body, and token-storage behavior. It is somewhat incomplete around the emoji parameter and exact identifier rules, but the core invocation context is present.

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?

With only 22% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by naming the body fields name/title, asin, url, searchKeywords, and catalogId, and by clarifying the URL format as a pasted /dp link. It still omits emoji and does not fully disambiguate name versus title or identifier alternatives.

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 verb and resource: add an item to a kit. It is clearly a mutation scoped to an existing kit, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as create_and_fill or create_kit.

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 provides a key prerequisite: editToken from create. It also explains accepted body identifiers, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus create_and_fill or other kit-related 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?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds real value: it discloses the return payload (id, editToken, ownerUrl, shopUrl) and the non-obvious side effect that each itemQueries entry is searched and added as a kit item. It omits failure behavior, whether creation is idempotent, and what editToken grants.

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 and short, but the return fields are listed twice ('return shopUrl (share link) + ownerUrl' then 'Returns id, editToken, ownerUrl, shopUrl'), and the trailing 'OpenAPI: agentCreateAndFill' is internal noise that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke.

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 9-parameter mutating, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the outputs and required params but leaves half the inputs unexplained and says nothing about what editToken is for or what happens when the call fails. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description must compensate; it partially does by mapping itemAsins / itemKeywords / itemQueries to fill behavior and flagging marketplace + locale as required. The other four parameters (moveType, roomFocus, budgetBand, householdName) are left entirely to their bare names.

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 and resource: 'create a curated housewarming / moving in gift wishlist' plus a one-shot fill, and it names the return artifacts (shopUrl, ownerUrl). It also implicitly contrasts with the create_kit + add_kit_item path ('Preferred agent path: create a kit and add ASINs...'), though it never names those sibling tools explicitly.

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?

'Preferred agent path' clearly signals this is the default route over composing create_kit + add_kit_item, and 'ALWAYS pass marketplace + locale' is a concrete invocation directive. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. adding items to an existing kit).

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 only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value by enumerating the return payload (id, editToken, ownerUrl, shopUrl, wishlist, storage) and flagging the critical token-continuity requirement for add_kit_item. It omits permissions, whether ownerUrl/shopUrl make the list publicly reachable, and rate limits, so it falls short of full 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, then workflow guidance; every clause carries information. 'OpenAPI: createWishlist' is marginally useful metadata rather than agent-facing guidance, a minor bit of 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?

The description covers the creation semantics and return shape well, which matters given there is no output schema. But for an 8-parameter mutation tool with 25% schema coverage, the input side (what moveType, budgetBand, roomFocus, cityHint, householdName actually influence) is left unexplained, so an agent can call it but cannot call it well.

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?

With 8 parameters and only 25% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and does not — it says nothing about marketplace, items, cityHint, moveType, roomFocus, budgetBand, or householdName. The nested items array (url/asin/name/emoji/catalogId/searchKeywords) is entirely undocumented, leaving an agent to guess how to seed a kit.

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 — 'Create a housewarming / first-apartment kit list' — which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from add_kit_item (appends to an existing kit) and create_and_fill (one-shot variant). It even maps to the backing OpenAPI operation (createWishlist), removing any doubt about what gets created.

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?

'Prefer create_and_fill for one-shot' and 'Save editToken for add_kit_item' give an explicit alternative plus the follow-up workflow, implying this tool is for incremental kit building. It stops short of a full when-to-use statement (e.g. what to do when items are already known), but the routing signal is 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?

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world tool, and the description adds useful behavior: results are paginated, amazon.se may return /dp/ASIN buy links, and other marketplaces use search-ideas catalogMode. It does not contradict the annotations and gives regional behavior that an agent would not otherwise know.

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 core resource before regional and parameter notes. The final OpenAPI reference is somewhat internal, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 eight parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. It does not explain the catalog filters, pagination mechanics beyond the word 'paginated,' or what the curated results 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It reinforces the required marketplace and locale fields, but gives no meaning for q, limit, offset, moveType, roomFocus, or budgetBand, leaving most filtering and pagination semantics unexplained.

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 identifies a specific resource: a paginated curated housewarming starter catalog. It hints at differentiation from search with 'Search remains primary,' but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling search_kits tool.

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 implies that search is the primary path and this catalog is secondary, but it never states exactly when to use this tool versus search_kits or other siblings. The requirement to always pass marketplace and locale is usage-adjacent but does not define invocation scenarios.

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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear; the description adds real value by enumerating the diagnostic keys (storage, paapi, tagConfigured, catalogCount) an agent can inspect. It doesn't mention auth requirements, latency, or whether failures return errors vs partial 'ok' flags, which is the main remaining gap for a health endpoint.

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 short sentences: purpose and return shape front-loaded, then the routing hint, then a reference pointer. No filler and nothing buried.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and only read-only annotations, the description carries the full burden by listing the returned fields and their meaning — including nested marketplace fields (domain, label, tagConfigured). An agent needs nothing else to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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 concrete verb+resource ('Health check') plus the exact return payload (ok, storage, paapi, trackingTag, defaultDomain, catalogCount, marketplaces[]), so an agent knows precisely what diagnostic surface it gets. The 'Use first to discover storefronts' clause cleanly separates it from siblings like get_catalog and list_marketplaces.

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 says 'Use first to discover storefronts', which tells the agent when to call this before other tools. It doesn't state why an agent would pick this over list_marketplaces for enumerating marketplaces, so the alternative routing is only partially covered.

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 cover the read-only and open-world safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral value by sketching the return payload (wishlist items, buyUrl/linkType when present, ownerUrl, shopUrl). It stops short of covering not-found or error 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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return shape immediately after. The trailing 'OpenAPI: getWishlist' is internal traceability metadata that adds little for an agent, a small blemish.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, describing the returned fields is the main thing the description needs to supply, and it does so. Missing only failure/empty-kit behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 id parameter already documents the 'short Redis id or t.* token' format, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates 'by id' and adds nothing about the parameter beyond the structured field.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('kit by id'), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like create_kit and add_kit_item. It does not explicitly contrast with search_kits, so differentiation from that sibling is left implicit via 'by id'.

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 is only implied: the 'by id' phrasing suggests it is the tool to reach for when an id is already known, and the id format note reinforces that. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative such as search_kits.

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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds real context beyond annotations: tagConfigured is false until real Associates IDs exist, and the concrete consequence that buyUrl omits ?tag=. It does not state whether the list is static or the domain format expected, but the notable data-state caveat is disclosed.

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 dense sentences with the field list and the mandatory downstream behavior front-loaded; nothing is wasted. Minor cost: identifiers like currencyHint are packed into the parenthetical without explanation, slightly straining readability.

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, zero-annotation-burden listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, why it matters, and the one surprising field value. An agent can call it and act on the result without further inference.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The parenthetical field list describes return values rather than inputs, which adds value but does not change the parameter story.

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 ("List supported Amazon storefronts") followed by the exact fields returned in parentheses, so the agent knows both the shape and content of the result. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_catalog or resolve_product, which consume the marketplace value rather than enumerate it.

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 directs the agent: "MUST pick the user's marketplace and pass it on search/catalog/resolve," naming the downstream tools that require the value. This is a clear when-and-how directive rather than implied usage, and there is no competing alternative to exclude.

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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context beyond them: it discloses that no Associates tag is fabricated and that trackingTag comes back null until configured — a non-obvious output behavior. It stops short of describing any failure or fallback behavior when resolution fails.

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 dense sentences with the accepted inputs and the required-parameter constraint front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing 'OpenAPI: resolveProduct' is mildly cryptic but cheap.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the core resolve path is covered adequately, but the apartment-search branch and its three unexplained parameters leave an agent unable to invoke that mode confidently. The trackingTag note partly compensates by explaining an otherwise surprising return value.

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 63%, so the schema carries most of the load and baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces marketplace/locale as mandatory and explains that keywords are a fallback when no ASIN exists, but moveType, roomFocus and budgetBand — three of the eight params, presumably tied to the 'apartment search' mode — get zero explanation anywhere.

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 (resolve) and the exact input forms it accepts (ASIN, pasted /dp/ URL, keywords) plus the output (buyUrl), which is far more than the title conveys. It does not name any sibling, but the siblings are all kit-management tools that are obviously unrelated, so disambiguation is not needed.

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?

'ALWAYS pass marketplace + locale' is a concrete usage directive, and the '(product /dp or apartment search)' parenthetical implies two modes. However, it never says which of url/asin/keywords takes precedence when several are supplied, and it gives no guidance on when to use this rather than e.g. get_catalog for lookups.

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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already provided, the description still adds useful behavioral detail: it returns PA-API products when configured, otherwise deep-link cards with buyUrl/trackingTag plus catalogMatches. This fallback behavior is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then covers return modes and required parameters in a compact form. The OpenAPI reference is somewhat meta, but overall it is appropriately sized and has little wasted text.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: purpose, marketplace/locale requirement, and the two possible return modes. It could say more about limit behavior and budgetBand, but the core invocation needs are covered.

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 71%, so most parameter meaning is already in the schema. The description reinforces that marketplace and locale are required, but it does not explain budgetBand or limit semantics beyond the schema's constraints.

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 names a specific verb and resource: searching Amazon for first-apartment/housewarming essentials on the user's marketplace. It is clearly a product-search tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_catalog or resolve_product.

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 a clear operating context (search on the user's marketplace) and an explicit requirement: ALWAYS pass marketplace + locale. However, it does not state when to use this instead of get_catalog, resolve_product, or other sibling tools, leaving alternatives inferred.

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