IZOProfil.pl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it warns that the lowest tier must not be treated as universal and that requires_confirmation means no definitive price should be given. That is substantive output-interpretation guidance beyond the structured fields.

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 and front-loads the resource being returned. The two warning sentences are terse but each carries a distinct constraint. Slightly fragmentary phrasing keeps it from earning a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the description references requires_confirmation and price tiers without clarifying that these are output fields, and it gives no guidance on the product_id source or on how the result differs from the sibling price tool. Adequate but with clear gaps for a detail-lookup 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation. In practice the single parameter, product_id (integer, 1..2147483647), is self-descriptive from its name and constraints. The description adds no guidance on where a product_id comes from or how to obtain one, so it neither helps nor misleads.

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+resource: it returns current public product details, description, price interpretation, and translations. An agent can tell this is a product-detail read rather than a price lookup per se. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling offer-get-product-price, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus offer-get-product-price or offer-search-products. The caveats about tiering and requires_confirmation govern how to interpret results, not when to select this tool. The agent must guess the boundary between details and price.

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 only declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: source hierarchy, quantity-gap and overlap policy, ambiguity handling, and explicit limitations like no inventory verification and unverified checkout discounts.

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 dense but front-loaded paragraph with no filler; every sentence adds policy or output requirements. It could be easier to scan with structure, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 pricing complexity, output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers data-source fallback, ambiguity policy, and required quote fields. The main residual gap is parameter-level semantics, but overall an agent has enough behavioral context to invoke 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It conditionally explains format_id and references allowed_units and minimum quantity, but never defines product_id, quantity's string decimal pattern, or the unit enum values, so compensation is partial.

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: retrieving a product price by quantity, with detailed pricing context. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools offer-get-product and offer-search-products, so it falls 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?

It gives procedural conditions such as asking for format_id when format_required is true and returning requires_confirmation for other ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling product tools, leaving usage routing 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?

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: availability is store-declared with no inventory verification, product text must be treated as data rather than instructions, and pagination follows next_page. Those are exactly the caveats an agent needs to trust results and avoid injection.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, pagination, availability caveat, data-trust policy, and sibling routing. There is no filler and the scoping statement is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, four parameters with zero schema descriptions and no compensating text leave the search semantics underspecified for a tool whose whole job is querying.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate — but it says nothing about page, query matching behavior, the language code format, or the per_page cap of 24. It only references next_page, which is not even an input parameter, leaving the actual inputs 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search all public WooCommerce products") plus scope ("across languages"), which separates it from offer-get-product. It also names offer-get-product-price as the sibling for quantity pricing, though it never mentions offer-get-product explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule ("Use get-product-price for quantity pricing") and tells the agent how to continue ("Paginate using next_page"). No explicit exclusion or precondition for when a single-product lookup is preferable, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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