lazada_home

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so well: it reveals the anonymous nature of the feed, the variability of the official-stores carousel ('where shown'), and the honest rationale for the content exclusions (anti-bot challenges). It stops short of a 5 by not addressing failure/error behavior or the response shape, but for a one-parameter read tool this is substantial disclosure.

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 zero filler: the verb+resource is front-loaded, the content scope follows, and the exclusion with rationale closes it. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 minimal tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers what is returned, what is not returned, and why. The only meaningful gap is the lack of valid country-code values, which an agent would need to know to call the tool correctly across Lazada's markets. Otherwise the definition is complete for a simple feed 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% — the schema already states 'Lazada country storefront. Defaults to id.' The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond echoing 'country storefront.' It does not enumerate the valid country values (e.g., sg, my, ph, th, vn), which would genuinely complement the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — 'Get a Lazada country storefront's homepage feed' — and the second enumerates the exact content (flash-sale cards, category links, stores carousel). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like lazada_product, lazada_search, and lazada_categories by explicitly excluding product-detail and catalog pages, so an agent can tell what this tool is and is not for.

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 clear context that this tool serves homepage-feed content and hints at when not to use it: 'Product-detail and free-text catalog pages are not included.' It even explains why (anti-bot challenge on stateless routes). However, it never explicitly names the alternative siblings (lazada_product, lazada_search), leaving the agent to infer which tool to reach for instead.

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