ai-furniture-hub

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: real-time API search, returns price/reviews/images, and requires presenting affiliate URLs to users. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, pagination, or what happens when no results are found. It adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: first establishes when to use the tool, second describes what it does and a key behavioral requirement. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of functional vs. behavioral aspects.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate functional context but lacks important behavioral details. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but doesn't describe return format, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 the tool searches Rakuten Ichiba for furniture/storage products using real-time API data, returning price, reviews, and images. It specifies the resource (Rakuten Ichiba) and action (search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_amazon_products' or 'search_products' beyond mentioning Rakuten specifically.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'when products aren't in the catalog or when latest price/stock info is needed.' It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context implies this is for real-time Rakuten searches rather than cached or curated data.

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