record_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, return values, idempotency, authentication requirements, or error behavior. It only states the action and parameter, which is insufficient for a write operation without any behavioral context.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and includes the parameter definition in a clear 'Args' block. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant information.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose and argument. However, it omits any information about what the agent should expect after calling (e.g., success response, acknowledgment) and does not reference sibling tools for alternative actions. Without annotations, this feels minimally adequate but not complete.

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 explains 'product_id' as 'the ID of the generated product that was viewed', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare title 'Product Id'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it lacks constraints like format or whether the ID must exist.

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 a specific action ('Record a view/impression event') and resource ('product listing'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'record_sale' or 'track_product_performance'. It is not a tautology and gives a clear verb+noun structure.

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 when to use the tool by stating its exact purpose, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance such as 'for sales, use record_sale instead', but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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