Birinchi Shop — Uzbekistan store

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notable behavioral detail that the caller must supply the last 4 digits of the customer's phone, i.e. an identity check — but it says nothing about failure behavior when the phone doesn't match, nor about rate limits.

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 short sentences, purpose first and requirements second, with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description never indicates what the status response contains (state, timestamps, tracking) nor what happens when the order id / phone pair fails verification. Adequate to invoke, but incomplete for interpreting results.

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 carries the load — and it does name both parameters and clarify that phone_last4 is the last four digits of the customer's phone, not the full number. It still doesn't restate the integer type, minimum, or 4-digit pattern, but the semantic meaning of both params is conveyed.

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 resource (an order's status) and scopes it to an order 'placed earlier', which cleanly separates it from the place_order sibling. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'placed earlier' implies this is for existing orders and the requirement of phone_last4 establishes an authentication precondition. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. get_product for product info) are given; usage 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-payload context, including variants with their own price and availability plus delivery terms and total to pay, which goes 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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence listing the returned data with no filler. The structure is efficient and appropriate for a simple detail-retrieval 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete because it enumerates the return contents. The main missing piece is any mention of product_id semantics or sibling routing.

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 parameter (product_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains that this is a lookup by product ID. The parameter's meaning is inferable only from the tool name and schema type, not from prose.

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 identifies the resource and the depth of detail returned: description, images, video, variants, delivery terms, and total. It does not explicitly differentiate this detail lookup from sibling search_products, but the tool name and content make the purpose clear.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use get_product versus search_products or other siblings. Usage is only implied by the return-content list, which is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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 flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful real-world consequences: a call-center operator phones the customer, then a courier delivers and collects payment. It does not discuss duplicate-order risk, cancellation, or rate limits, but the core side effects are disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences with the critical real-order nature, fulfillment process, and confirmation gate front-loaded. No filler.

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?

Covers the essential workflow and confirmation requirement for a consequential write operation. With no output schema, it could say more about the response (e.g., order ID) and failure behavior, but the operational picture is sufficiently complete to call 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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that customer_confirmed=true implies the shopper explicitly confirmed product, variant, total, and phone number, which is a stronger semantic constraint than the schema's 'Must be true' note.

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 ('Places a real cash-on-delivery order') and emphasizes 'real' to distinguish it from status/query siblings. An agent can immediately tell this is the actual fulfillment action, not a 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?

Gives a clear precondition: the order is accepted only with customer_confirmed=true, which the shopper must explicitly provide after confirming product, variant, total, and phone. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is well defined.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds something the annotations cannot: the exact return payload (title, price in UZS, delivery fee, availability, url, image), which is important with no output schema. It omits ordering/pagination behavior beyond limit and any rate-limit or truncation notes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return payload, then the one non-obvious usage tip. No filler and nothing an agent must skim past.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape and query strategy, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the undocumented sort and min_price parameters and any result-cap behavior.

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 schema coverage at 60%, the schema documents query, limit and max_price but leaves sort and min_price bare. The description reinforces the currency for price and adds a real tip about keyword length and language that goes beyond the schema examples, but it never explains what the sort enum values imply or how min_price/max_price interact. Baseline 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search the store catalog") and then enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_product (single-item lookup), leaving that routing 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?

The language note ("Product names are in Uzbek or Russian; short keywords in either language match best") is useful guidance on how to query, and "Empty = popular products" in the schema covers the browse case. However there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus get_product or the other siblings, so 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful detail of which policy topics are present, but says nothing about the shape of the response (structured policy sections vs. free text) or whether it is a static snapshot that may be stale. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the covered topics in a scannable order. Every clause maps to actual retrievable content; nothing is redundant.

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 zero-param, read-only information tool with no output schema, the topic enumeration is the main thing an agent needs to decide to call it. The only residual gap is not knowing the return format (plain FAQ text vs. sections), which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description implies no input is needed, consistent with the empty schema, and there is nothing further an agent needs to supply.

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 (store policies) and enumerates the covered topics: delivery area/time/fee, cash-on-delivery, order confirmation, returns, and support contact. This clearly distinguishes it from the siblings (get_order_status, get_product, place_order, search_products), which are transactional. It stops short of a verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', so an agent must infer that calling it yields policy text, but the content scope is specific enough to act on.

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 implied by the topic list – an agent should call this for delivery/payment/returns questions – but the description never states when to use it versus siblings, nor any exclusions. With a zero-parameter FAQ tool the routing is fairly self-evident, so implicit guidance is acceptable but not exemplary.

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