commodity_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals key behaviors: source distinction, soft-delete exclusion, and price attachment. However, it does not clarify whether multiple identifiers can be combined, ordering of results, or other side effects.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and provides essential contextual information without extraneous details. Every sentence adds value.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers primary lookup behavior and key filters but omits details on limit, env, result format, and error handling. Adequate but has clear gaps.

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 low (22%); the description adds meaning for sku, htsCode, shopifyProductId, bpProductId, title, source, and includeRemoved. However, it omits limit and env, and does not explain each parameter's constraints beyond the schema defaults.

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 'Look up commodities' with a specific action and resource. It lists exact identifiers (sku, htsCode, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all different operations (e.g., coverage_report, db_query).

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 explains the context of ERP vs. manual rows and soft-deletion, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Since no sibling is a lookup tool, the guidance is sufficient but not explicit.

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