verify_merchant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can either read (show current score) or write (update score) depending on the parameter. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens on error. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, with the core purpose in the first line and clear parameter explanations. The use of bullet-like formatting with 'Args:' is helpful. However, the line breaks and spacing could be tighter, and it is front-loaded adequately.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic behavior but lacks details about the return value (e.g., format of score), error handling for invalid merchant names, and any rate limits. It is sufficient for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so clearly: merchant_name is the merchant name, and successful_order is an optional boolean indicating success or failure. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title, though it could include more detail like format expectations.

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 two distinct use cases: checking merchant reliability without the optional parameter, and reporting an experience with it. It uses specific verbs ('prüfen', 'melden') and resource ('Händler-Zuverlässigkeit'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_offers or create_purchase_intent.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode based on the presence of successful_order. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare it to siblings, but the context of merchant verification vs. other purchase-related tools is clear.

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