Ownware Catalogue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description reinforces this by stating 'It does not buy anything.' It adds valuable behavior beyond the annotation by disclosing the fallback: returns a reason when no checkout is configured.

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, front-loaded sentences. The first identifies the resource and context; the second covers the edge case; the third clarifies side effects. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, edge-case behavior, and side-effect clarification. Nothing essential 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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (slug as 'The product slug.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra semantics for the parameter, meeting the baseline for high coverage without adding further 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?

The description states a specific verb (get) and resource (checkout link for a product), and clarifies it is the link used by the Buy button. It distinguishes from purchase actions by explicitly noting it does not buy anything, and from sibling search/product tools by focusing on checkout links.

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 gives clear context—this is the link used by the Buy button and returns a reason when checkout is not configured. It implies when to use it (when you need a product's checkout link) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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 mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it enumerates the exact fields returned, clarifies the monthly figure is in integer cents only where one exists, and discloses that an empty list with a reason is returned when there are no cited rows. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint without contradicting it.

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 dense sentence that packs in all essential information without filler. It is front-loaded with the input scope and then lists the output fields, though the length of the sentence makes it slightly harder to parse than a structured multi-sentence version.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of covering return values and the empty-case behavior. It explains each returned field and the reason for an empty list, leaving little ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 slug parameter is already described with an example. The description reinforces that the slug must identify a single product, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool returns every cited competitor row for a given product slug, including the price, monthly figure, vendor page, and read date. This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic search or product lookup tools, though it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as product, search_catalogue, or hosted_offer. The phrase 'For one product slug' implies a singular input but does not state when this tool is the right choice or when an alternative should be used.

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?

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds rich behavioral context: list ordering (newest first), response fields (title, description, written date, address), markdown body for full guides, and the fact that unpublished guides are not found. These go well beyond the annotation and fully describe the operation's observable 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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences carry all necessary information without repetition. The description opens with the resource, then clearly separates the no-slug and with-slug cases, and closes with the access constraint. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers the list and detail modes, filtering behavior, returned fields, format, and the unpublished-not-found rule. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning for q by specifying that it matches 'every word' across title, description, or slug, and for slug by explaining it returns the full guide as markdown. This is more than the schema alone provides, though limit semantics are already fully documented in 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 states a specific resource ('the published guides') and verbs: listing with no slug, reading in full with a slug, filtering via q. It clearly distinguishes its two modes and the behavior of each, making it easy to tell this tool apart from siblings like product or search_catalogue 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?

The description gives clear operational guidance: use without slug to get the list, use with slug to read a guide in full, and use q to filter. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus a sibling, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: the output changes depending on whether slug is present or omitted. It does not mention return format or any rate/access constraints, but for a simple read-only lookup the added behavior is moderately useful.

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 filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter behavior stated compactly. Every sentence 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coveragehol, the description covers the essential behavior and output semantics (hosted products and monthly price). There is no output schema, and while a precise return structure is not described, the description gives enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result at a practical level.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: it explains that an absent slug means 'list all hosted products' while a present slug narrows to one product. This is more than the schema's bare 'Optional. One product slug.'

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 tool's purpose: reporting which products are offered as hosted services and their monthly prices, with behavior for both a given slug and no slug. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on 'hosted' products, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling 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?

The description gives clear usage context: pass a slug to get one answer, or omit it to list every hosted product. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_catalogue, product, or compare, leaving tool-selection guidance largely implied.

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, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by detailing what is returned (what it does, runs on, editions/prices, comparison rows), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the scope ('Everything the product page states') and enumerates key content areas without filler. Every word 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?

Given the tool is a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned. It could mention error behavior (e.g., not-found) but that is a minor gap for a read-only lookup tool. The enumeration of return content is sufficient.

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 a clear description of the 'id' parameter as a product slug and example. The description merely echoes this ('by slug'), adding no new semantics or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('get one product') and elaborates on the scope ('everything the product page states'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_catalogue (search) or checkout_link (purchase-related). The mention of 'by slug' reinforces the precise retrieval mechanism.

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 implies usage when you have a product slug and need detailed product page content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent would know to use this for a single product lookup rather than a search or checkout operation.

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, so the tool is known to be non-destructive. The description adds a behavioral detail: 'Returns nothing when that product ships none', which is useful context about the tool's output under a specific condition. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or format details, but with the annotation covering safety, this is sufficient for a baseline score.

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 concise, comprising two short sentences with no redundant wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the note about returning nothing is an efficient addition. Every sentence earns its place with 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (the quickstart file verbatim) and the edge case when no file exists. It does not specify pagination or formatting, but these are likely not relevant for this tool. Minor gaps like error handling for invalid slugs are not critical, so the description is nearly 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?

The schema fully describes the 'slug' parameter as 'The product slug', so parameter semantics are already covered structurally. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Given 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads the QUICKSTART file that ships inside the product, specifying the exact content ('how to install and run it'). The verb 'read' plus resource 'quickstart file' is specific, and it differentiates from sibling tools (checkout_link, hosted_offer, product, search_catalogue) which serve other 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 implies when to use the tool—when you need the product's quickstart file—but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with siblings like 'product' or 'search_catalogue'. The use case is inferable but not stated.

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=true covering the safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotation: which fields are searched, that results include one-time price, and that an empty query returns the full catalogue. These traits help an agent predict behavior without contradicting the annotation.

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, each earning its place: the search behavior, the return content, and the empty-query edge case. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 read-only search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation semantics and key return content. It does not describe pagination or ordering, but these are not essential 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%, so the schema already documents q and limit. The description goes further by clarifying what q matches against (name, slug, tagline, description) and explaining the empty-query behavior, adding meaning beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('Find products') and enumerates the searchable fields (name, slug, tagline, description), making the tool's purpose concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like product, but the search behavior is clear and recognizable.

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 implies when to use it: when searching by words and when wanting the full catalogue via an empty query. It does not mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is present but only implied.

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