Search AgentBodega Catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool is read-only and has no side effects ('never executes paid endpoints or creates x402 payments'). This is essential for an agent to use it safely. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior, which would be beneficial for completeness.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary use case, and the second explains what the tool does and its safety. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and its read-only nature. The sibling tools list helps with differentiation. However, it could mention what to do after receiving results (e.g., use other tools for details or execution), but the core use case is well handled.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. The description contextualizes the parameters by stating the tool fetches a live directory and returns summaries, but it does not provide additional semantic details for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already documents parameters well.

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's purpose: 'Use this first when you need to choose an AgentBodega paid data endpoint.' It specifies the action (search/fetch directory), the resource (AgentBodega catalog), and what it returns (summaries with key, path, price, etc.). It differentiates from siblings by noting it never executes endpoints, which is a key distinction from agentbodega_call_snippet.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this first when you need to choose an AgentBodega paid data endpoint.' It also states when not to use it: 'It never executes paid endpoints or creates x402 payments,' implying a different tool for execution. This gives clear context for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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