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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that omitting the slug returns all hosted products while providing a slug returns a single answer, but it does not detail the response format 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the conditional slug behavior is presented immediately after, giving the agent the key decision information up front.

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 optional parameterasi and no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior and result content: hosted products and monthly prices. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though it does not enumerate exact response fields.

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 already documents 'slug' as an optional string with 100% coverage. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying the semantic difference between supplying a slug and omitting it, which is essential for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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: identifying which Ownware Cloud products are hosted and their monthly prices. It also explicitly covers the two invocation modes (single slug vs. no slug), making the resource and behavior immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like search_catalogue or 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?

The intended usage is implied: use this tool when the user asks about Ownware Cloud hosted products or pricing. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer a sibling tool such as product or search_catalogue, leaving the routing decision somewhat 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 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.