fiverr_gig

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that data comes from Fiverr's server-rendered pages via a real browser-rendering backend, which hints at potential latency and dependence on page structure. However, it stops short of declaring read-only status, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving some unknowns for the agent.

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 three crisp sentences: action, return payload list, and data-source note. All content is substantive with no repetition or filler, and the verb is front-loaded. This is a model of concise, well-structured tool documentation.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the core returned attributes (title, description, packages, rating, orders, tags, gallery, seller summary), giving the agent a solid mental model of the response. It does not cover edge cases like missing optional fields or page-load failures, but the schema fully documents the two required parameters, making this adequate for a read-only detail fetch.

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 100%, with both 'slug' and 'username' accurately described (e.g., slug is 'the trailing path segment after the username'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level explanation beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without enhancing semantics.

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 begins with 'Get Fiverr gig detail,' a specific verb-resource pair, and enumerates the exact return fields (title, description, pricing packages, rating, etc.). This clearly delineates it from sibling tools like fiverr_search (which searches) and fiverr_seller (which covers seller profiles), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 use whenever a gig detail is needed and provides context about the data source ('normalized,' 'server-rendered'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as fiverr_search or fiverr_seller, nor state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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