Macron Store Vilnius

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

Annotations already declare this a non-destructive write in a closed world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine constraint context the annotations do not carry: a per-item cap of 10 and a cart total of 50, which shapes how an agent should batch adds. It omits what happens when the cap is exceeded.

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 zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the constraint sentence follows, so an agent gets the operation first and the limits second.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, this covers action, variant handling, and quantity caps adequately. Missing only error behavior on cap violation and explicit sibling routing, which are minor given the surrounding schemas and tools.

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 50% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does partially: it explains the combination concept ('products with sizes or colours') and the quantity limit that reinforces the schema's maximum: 10. cart_token and product_id semantics remain undocumented in both places.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Adds a quantity of a product ... to the cart', which an agent can distinguish from set_quantity and remove_line. It also clarifies the combination case for sized/coloured products. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it is clear but not routed.

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 by the verb 'adds' plus the stated caps ('at most 10 of one item and 50 in total'). There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. add_line vs set_quantity), nor any statement about prerequisites beyond the cart_token reference.

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 declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the returned cart_token's downstream use and the external handoff where the person pays on macron.lt. It stops short of disclosing cart lifetime/expiry or whether a prior cart is reused or replaced.

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 zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool does before describing its outputs and their intended recipients. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and covers the two key fields (cart_token, checkout_url) plus the external payment step. It omits secondary details such as cart expiration or error cases, leaving a small but real 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and it correctly spends no words on 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Creates an empty cart") and scopes it as empty, which distinguishes it from sibling cart mutators like add_line and set_quantity. An agent can identify this as the cart-initialization entry point without opening any 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?

Strong implied routing: the cart_token is flagged as needed "for the other cart tools," which tells the agent this must be called before get_cart/add_line/set_quantity/remove_line. It does not, however, state any explicit when-not condition or name an alternative entry point, so it falls just short of full usage guidance.

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=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the response includes price and an orderability flag, which is useful behavioural detail, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or behaviour for unknown/invalid product ids.

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: the first front-loads what is returned, the second gives the follow-up action. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the highest-value information leads.

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 output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and it provides a routing hint to add_line. The only real gap is that the single input parameter is never described, which matters at 0% schema coverage.

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?

There is one required input, product_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It only obliquely says 'of a product' and instead highlights combination_id, which is an output field, not an input — an agent gets no confirmation of what to pass in.

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 and enumerates the returned fields (combination_id, price, orderable flag), so an agent knows this is a stock/availability lookup for a product's size-colour variants. It is clear, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like get_product or get_size_guide.

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?

'Pass combination_id to add_line' gives a concrete downstream workflow hint, implying this is the prerequisite lookup before adding a line item. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of get_product or search_catalogue, so the selection guidance is only 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds a return-content signal (checkout_url) but says nothing about token validity, expiration, or error behavior for an invalid/expired cart.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence listing the returned data with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it reads as a fragment rather than a fully grammatical statement of action.

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 only one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (lines, prices, total, checkout_url) — which is exactly the burden it must carry. It falls short only on edge-case behavior for missing or expired carts.

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% for the single cart_token parameter, and the schema already documents its provenance from create_cart. The description adds no format, validity, or lifecycle detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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 names the resource (the cart) and enumerates its contents — lines, prices, total, and checkout_url — so an agent knows this is a read of an existing cart. It is distinguishable from write siblings like add_line or set_quantity, though it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no explicit alternative tool named. The only contextual link is indirect: the schema notes cart_token comes from create_cart, implying this follows cart creation, but the description itself offers nothing.

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=false, so safety is covered. The description's contribution is naming the returned fields, which is genuinely useful because no output schema exists, but it omits any error behavior (e.g., invalid product_id) or lookup semantics beyond that.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the field list is front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-parameter lookup the description is minimally adequate: it conveys the return shape, which matters since there is no output schema. It still leaves the identifier semantics and failure behavior unstated, so an agent has gaps for calling 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions product_id or what identifier it expects. With a required parameter that is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 enumerates the returned fields ('Name, description, price, link and images of one product') but never states a verb or operation, leaving the action to be inferred from the name/title 'Product details'. It also gives no differentiation from siblings like search_catalogue or get_availability, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a single-product lookup.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The sibling set includes search_catalogue and get_availability, both of which overlap with retrieving product information, yet the description never explains which to pick or under what condition.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context (text format, includes a link), but does not discuss authentication, caching, or freshness of the size data. For a zero-parameter read-only lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. The parenthetical and 'with a link' are compact, though 'a link' is slightly vague about destination. Efficient overall.

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, zero-input, read-only retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description says enough: what the content is, that it is text, and that it includes a link. Minor gaps remain (e.g., whether the guide is global or product-specific), but nothing critical 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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document any parameter semantics, and it correctly keeps focus on the returned content.

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 and return shape: the shop's size tables (body measurements per size) as text, with a link. It clearly separates this from cart, product, and availability siblings by resource. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it falls just 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?

The description says what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use conditions, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the sibling tools. Usage is only weakly implied by the content (sizing information).

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 state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is nominally covered, but the description adds nothing beyond them. For a cart mutation it should disclose what happens to the cart total, whether removing the last line empties the cart, whether the call is idempotent, and whether combination_id affects which line is targeted. None of that is present. No contradiction with annotations, though destructiveHint=false for a removal tool is worth noting.

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 short sentence with no filler and no buried information, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing. It is appropriately front-loaded yet too thin for a three-parameter mutation tool.

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 output schema and low schema coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining effects and error behavior, and it does not. An agent cannot tell what is returned, what happens to the cart, or how combination_id interacts with product_id.

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 33%: cart_token is documented in the schema (referencing create_cart), but product_id and combination_id have no descriptions anywhere. The description contributes zero parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; the required product_id is entirely 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 'Removes a line from the cart' is a verbatim restatement of the title 'Remove from cart' and the name remove_line, adding no distinguishing detail. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like set_quantity (which could plausibly reduce a line to zero) or add_line, so an agent gains nothing beyond the identifier.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as set_quantity or add_line, nor any statement of prerequisites. The only implicit cue is the name itself, which the description merely echoes.

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=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are capped at 20 and restricted to products 'that can be ordered now' (an availability filter), which the agent could not infer from the schema or 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the query hints and return behavior following. No filler or 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 read-only, no-output-schema tool the description covers what is returned and how to query. It omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter and gives no sense of result ordering or how to retrieve beyond the top 20, leaving minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does add value for 'query' by explaining accepted inputs and giving examples, but 'limit' is never mentioned; the 'up to 20 products' phrase only loosely hints at its ceiling. Partial compensation for a 2-param tool.

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 ('Find products') plus the searchable dimensions (name, model, type). It implicitly separates itself from the single-item sibling get_product, but never names it or otherwise explicitly distinguishes the search tool from its retrieval siblings.

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?

Provides practical query guidance (Lithuanian or model names work best, with concrete examples), which is useful implied usage context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool over alternatives like get_product, get_availability, or get_size_guide, so routing is left to inference.

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 annotations present, the description earns credit for disclosing what the annotations hide: setting quantity to 0 deletes the cart line, which is exactly the 'what gets destroyed' context the destructiveHint=false flag does not convey. The mild tension with destructiveHint=false is defensible since a cart line item is not irreversible data destruction, and the description errs toward more disclosure, not less.

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 clause-pair sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and appending the most important edge case. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and four parameters at 25% schema coverage, this is thin: the agent still doesn't know how variant/combination selection works, whether quantity is capped, or what the call returns. The removal semantics are covered, but other gaps remain.

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% (just cart_token), so the schema leaves three parameters bare. The description adds real meaning for quantity by explaining that 0 is a removal sentinel, but it says nothing about combination_id (variant selection) or the quantity maximum of 10. It compensates partially, not fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (sets) and resource (quantity of a cart line), plus a useful edge-case behavior (0 removes the line). It doesn't differentiate from the siblings add_line, remove_line, or create_cart, which matters because set_quantity(0) overlaps with remove_line.

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: 'subtract-by-setting-0' is hinted at, but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this versus add_line or remove_line, nor prerequisites such as needing a cart_token from create_cart. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the routing.

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