catalog-feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by clarifying that '24h' means shipment within 24 hours (not payment term) and that 'skarbiec CH' means release only to Loomis vault in Switzerland. This aids the agent in understanding the output semantics.

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 three sentences long with no fluff. It front-loads the status values immediately, then clarifies ambiguous terminology, and adds a caveat about 'skarbiec CH'. Every sentence adds essential information not available in the annotations or 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?

The description lists possible status values and explains their meanings, which is critical since there is no output schema. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the response (e.g., whether it's a string or an object), and it does not cover error conditions or edge cases (e.g., invalid SKU). Given the tool's simplicity, it is moderately complete but could be improved.

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%. The description does not mention either parameter ('sku' or 'waluta'). It does not explain what these parameters mean, how to use them, or any constraints. The agent receives no guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly apart from the raw schema definitions.

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 checks product availability (SKU) and enumerates the possible statuses: 'od ręki (24h)', 'na zamówienie (7-10 dni)', 'skarbiec CH'. The verb 'sprawdź dostępność' (check availability) combined with the resource 'produkt (SKU)' makes the purpose highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_live_price or get_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 description implies that this tool is used to check availability status of a product, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on preferring this over search_products or get_product is given.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about returning two price types and a timestamp, plus a disclaimer that payment term 24h does not guarantee the price. This goes beyond annotations, though the exact response structure is not fully described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is written in Polish, which may hinder an English-speaking agent. The phrasing is somewhat verbose and could be more succinct. The caveat about payment term is useful but adds length.

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 main purpose and a behavioral caveat, but it is incomplete due to the missing parameter explanation and lack of output schema. For a simple price retrieval tool, it is minimally adequate but has notable 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions SKU and selected currency, covering two of three parameters. However, it omits the `ilosc` (quantity) parameter entirely and does not clarify the enum values for `waluta`. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 returns the current price of a product (SKU) in a selected currency, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle availability, product info, or searches. However, the Polish language and ambiguous phrasing about price types (7-10 days, 24h) slightly detract from clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. The description implies it is for price queries, but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. Usage is reasonably inferred but not explicitly 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds rich behavioral details: live price freshness (7-10 days), 24h price availability, delivery modes (e.g., exclusively to Loomis vault in CH), withdrawal right limitations, and VAT status. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with bullet points and complete sentences. Every sentence adds value, covering data fields, delivery nuances, legal disclaimers, and process notes. No unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly details the expected return data. It includes regulatory and process notes (KYC, withdrawal rights). However, it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool over siblings, slightly reducing completeness.

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 50%: 'ref' parameter is described with examples, but 'waluta' parameter only has enum values without a description. The description does not explicitly explain the 'waluta' parameter, leaving it partially undocumented.

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 retrieves full product data by SKU or handle, listing specific attributes included (metal, shape, weight, mint, accreditation, live price, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_availability and get_live_price by offering comprehensive data.

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 explains when to use this tool (to get full product details) and includes important context like the agent not finalizing purchases and KYC requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds minor behavioral context by specifying that the result is separated into mints and accreditations, which does not contradict 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (mints and accreditations, separated). However, it could additionally clarify the structure (e.g., two arrays) or mention if the list is paginated.

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 parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional information is needed.

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 returns a list of mints (producers) and accreditations (e.g., LBMA), using a specific verb ('Zwraca') and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_categories or search_products, which have different 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and title.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which fully describe the behavioral traits. The description adds minor context by mentioning the returned fields (handle + name), but does not significantly extend 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be organized slightly better with more structured information, but it is sufficiently concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It hints at output fields but does not specify ordering, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but lacks some completeness.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it also does not provide any additional details about parameter behavior.

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 lists product categories and includes fields 'handle' and 'nazwa'. The verb 'list' and resource 'categories' are specific. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_brands' and 'search_products', but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites or context for when listing categories is appropriate. The description relies on the name and title to imply usage.

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 indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds value by stating that only products with complete data are returned, results are sorted ascending by price, and disclaiming investment advice and purchase finalization. No contradiction with 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?

Description is reasonably concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose and filters, followed by important behavioral notes and disclaimers. Each sentence contributes value, though some repetition about non-investment advice could be streamlined.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key filtering capabilities and disclaimers. However, it omits details on pagination (limit parameter), optional nature of all params, and a more structured explanation of the return object beyond 'structured attributes + live price and availability.'

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 22%, so the description must compensate. It lists some filters (metal, form, mint, mass, price range) but misses explaining parameters like 'limit', 'waluta', 'dostepnosc', and 'próba' (purity). It does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 78% undocumented parameters.

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

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

Description clearly states it is a search engine for investment metals catalog, specifies filterable attributes (metal, form, purity, mint, mass, price range), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product, check_availability by focusing on multi-product search with live pricing and availability.

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?

Description provides some usage context: results are sorted by price, only complete data, data is informational, and agent does not finalize purchases (KYC required). However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool vs. siblings like check_availability or get_live_price, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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