realtime_costco_data

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only lists operations and required params, and does not mention return formats, pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent without crucial information.

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 concise and well-structured, using a bulleted operation list that is easy to parse and front-loads the core purpose. Each line has a clear function. The tiny tautologies in the operation descriptions ('Search', 'Product Details') keep it from being a perfect 5, but there is zero filler.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what results the tool returns and any constraints or error behavior. It only covers operation selection and required args, omitting result structure, search result limits, and data fields. This is a significant gap for a two-operation tool.

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?

The schema only defines 'operation' and a generic 'args' object, with no property-level definitions for query or product_id. The description compensates by specifying 'search (required: query)' and 'product_details (required: product_id)', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on value types or formats, so it is not perfect.

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 immediately states 'Costco product search and product details', clearly identifying the resource (Costco products) and the specific actions (search, product details). It also enumerates the two operations, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools focused on other retailers.

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 operation list provides clear guidance on when to use search vs product_details by listing required parameters for each. The 'Costco' scoping implies the intended use case, but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use realtime_walmart_data for Walmart), so it falls short of a full 5.

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