check_availabilityStatus dostępności produktu (SKU): od ręki (24h) / na zamówienie (7-10 dni) / skarbiec CH. 24h oznacza WYSYŁKĘ od ręki — nie mylić z terminem płatności. skarbiec_ch = wydanie tylko do skarbca Loomis (CH).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | ||
| waluta | No |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools have distinct purposes: check_availability for stock status, get_live_price for current price, get_product for full details, etc. Minor overlap exists (get_product includes price and availability), but descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (check_availability, get_live_price, get_product, list_brands, list_categories, search_products). No mixing of conventions.
6 tools is well-scoped for a product catalog feed. Each tool serves a clear informational purpose without redundancy, and the count is neither too few nor excessive.
The tool surface covers core catalog operations: listing brands/categories, searching, getting details, checking availability, and live pricing. Minor gaps (e.g., no tool to list supported currencies) but overall sufficient for the domain.