Get RaivatEdu Website Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description earns credit on top by disclosing provenance — data comes from schema.org JSON-LD (Organization + SoftwareApplication + WebSite) embedded in the site and reflects published copy rather than assumptions. It does not cover failure modes for an openWorld fetch (site unreachable, missing JSON-LD), which is the main remaining gap.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the document is organized into purpose, provenance, args, and returns, so a scanning agent finds what it needs quickly. The Args block is largely redundant with a fully documented schema, costing some density, though the Returns shape earns its space since no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, spelling out the returned JSON shape (product, organization, markets, source_url) is the right compensation and makes the tool's output predictable. What remains unaddressed is error behavior on a live-site fetch and whether a market override changes source_url — small but real gaps for an openWorld read.

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% and both parameters carry enums and defaults, so the schema already does the work. The description's Args section repeats the same locale list and defaults without adding syntax, interaction effects, or guidance on choosing a market, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and a precisely enumerated resource: product identity, the organization behind it, and the markets/currencies served. That enumeration implicitly carves out scope against siblings such as get_pricing, list_features, and get_contact_information, so an agent can pick this for the overview call without opening another schema.

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 is only implied: the 'high-level information' framing suggests this is the orientation call to make first, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_contact_information or get_pricing, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer intent but is not routed.

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