describe

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description is highly valuable for setting behavioral context. It defines the precise content of the various sections (e.g., 'price' is cost, 'facets' are per-facet scores) and specifies dependencies between inputs like `query` and `facets`.

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 definition is information-dense, but the structure is slightly disjointed, mixing output structure details with input parameter requirements and a connection hint at the end. It is concise but not exceptionally well-organized.

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?

It is quite complete for a retrieval tool, as it provides a comprehensive breakdown of what the returned data will look like for various request types (e.g., providing `query` for `facets`). The dependency mapping is a strong point.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is essential. It explicitly defines the available values and semantic meaning for the `sections` array (e.g., 'about', 'price', 'facets') and explains critical input dependencies that are not captured by the schema.

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 tool is described as providing 'One tool's detail,' which is clear about the action but lacks specific verbs that distinguish it from other data retrieval tasks. It lists the types of data retrieved (sections) rather than stating the high-level operational 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?

Usage guidance is extremely weak. It only notes that `sections` defaults to `['about']`. It does not advise when to use this tool versus other tools like `fetch_result` or `get_preferences`.

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