check_availability

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that availability is based on community-reported store data (not real-time inventory), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits other aspects like response format, error handling, or authentication needs.

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 two short paragraphs and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary sentences, but the Args line is somewhat redundant with the parameter description.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the main functionality and data source limitation. It lists return elements (status, store, timestamp) but lacks explicit output schema details, which are presumably provided separately.

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 description adds 'Product barcode/EAN to check' for the single parameter, providing context beyond the schema's title. Despite 0% schema coverage, this adds meaningful semantics, though format constraints are missing.

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 verb ('Check'), resource ('product availability and pricing'), and scope. It differentiates from siblings like get_product_details and search_products by focusing on availability and pricing specifically.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, leaving the agent without comparative context.

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