catalog-feed

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying that '24h' refers to shipment not payment, and defines the 'skarbiec_ch' status. 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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose and status values. Minor clutter from parentheses but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the return format. It does clarify status meanings and a common confusion, but lacks completeness regarding the currency parameter and output structure.

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 0%, but the description only explains the SKU parameter partially and omits the optional 'waluta' parameter entirely. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 by SKU and lists the exact possible statuses (immediately/on order/vault). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly.

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 tool versus alternatives like get_live_price or search_products. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns price from two timeframes and a timestamp, plus a warning about payment terms not guaranteeing price. This provides useful constraints beyond 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 but is long and contains parenthetical text and an extra warning about payment terms. It is adequately front-loaded with the main purpose but could be more concise by removing tangential details.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain the return structure beyond mentioning prices and timestamp. The missing explanation for 'ilosc' parameter also reduces completeness. Overall, it covers the core functionality but leaves some 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 explain parameters. It mentions 'SKU' and 'waluta' (currency) but does not explain 'ilosc' (quantity) at all. The enum for waluta is in schema but not described. Overall, parameter semantics are insufficiently covered.

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 provides the current price of a product (SKU) in a selected currency, including prices from two time frames and a timestamp. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_availability or get_product, but the phrase 'cena od (7-10 dni)' is slightly ambiguous.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly indicates it is for obtaining live price data, but there is no explicit guidance on conditions or 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds relevant behavioral context: KYC requirement for purchase, delivery mode restrictions, legal disclaimers (no investment advice, withdrawal right). This complements annotations without contradiction.

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 paragraph, front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes necessary legal disclaimers but is slightly dense. Every sentence adds value, though some disclaimers could be secondary. Overall efficient.

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's complexity (multiple attributes, price modes, delivery rules, legal notes), the description covers all key aspects. No output schema exists, so the description fully explains return content. Completeness is high for the intended use.

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 50% (ref is described, waluta is not). The description clarifies that ref accepts SKU or handle but does not explain the waluta parameter. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but largely omits waluta's role.

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 explicitly states 'Pełne dane produktu po SKU lub handle', indicating it returns comprehensive product details. It lists specific attributes (metal, forma, próba, etc.) that differentiate it from siblings like check_availability or get_live_price, which are more focused.

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 use when full product details are needed, covering availability, price, and legal info. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide when-not scenarios, leaving guidance 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the lists are separated, but does not contradict annotations. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 single sentence that is direct and front-loads the purpose. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention that the list is not exhaustive (openWorldHint already covers that) or if results are cached, but not necessary. Safety is handled by annotations.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add param info. It correctly implies no input is required.

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 two separate lists: mints/producers and accreditations (e.g., LBMA). The verb 'Zwraca' and object 'listę mennic... oraz akredytacji' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_categories.

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 the tool is for retrieving a catalog of brands and accreditations, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like search_products or get_product. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the returned fields (handle and name), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention ordering or pagination.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words.

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 informs the agent that it returns store product categories with handle and name. Could be improved by mentioning scope (e.g., all categories).

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 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 lists store product categories and includes the returned fields (handle and name). It distinguishes from siblings like list_brands and search_products.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance is provided. Since it's a simple list-all tool, the lack of alternative guidance is acceptable but not optimal.

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that results are sorted ascending by price, only complete data is returned, and purchase requires KYC. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as data completeness and sorting order. 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 relatively long and includes legal disclaimers about investment advice and KYC, which are necessary but add verbosity. It is structured with a first sentence stating purpose, then a list of filters, then constraints and disclaimers. Could be more concise by moving disclaimers to a separate section or condensing the list. However, the core information is present and organized.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and a search use case, the description covers the filter capabilities, output type (attributes + price+availability), sorting, and data completeness. However, it does not specify pagination behavior (limit parameter), response format, or exact fields returned. The lack of output schema means the description should provide more detail about the result structure. It is adequate but incomplete for a complex search tool.

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 has 9 parameters with only 22% schema description coverage. The description lists the filter categories (metal, form, mint, weight, price range) but does not explain individual parameters like 'limit', 'waluta', 'dostepnosc', or the enum values. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description should compensate by detailing parameter meanings, but it remains vague. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to use parameters like 'masa_g_min' vs 'masa_g_max' or 'cena_max'.

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 is a search engine for IDFMETALE investment metals catalog, enumerates filters (metal, form, mint, weight, price range), and specifies output includes structured attributes, live price, and availability. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on multi-attribute search with sorting and completeness constraints.

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 implicitly differentiates from siblings: use search_products for filtering and listing, get_product for single product details, check_availability for stock, get_live_price for pricing. It explicitly warns that the agent does not finalize purchases and that data is informational, which guides appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_brands or list_categories.

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