lookup_gid_shopid_v1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses HTTP method, required body, and optional API key, and points to itad://guide/calling for full instructions. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, side effects, or response format; 'lookup' implies a read but safety disclosure is absent.

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 key info front-loaded: endpoint, purpose, required params, auth, and guide reference. No fluff, though the mixed-language '必填' section is slightly cryptic.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not describe return values or error behavior. Core invocation details (endpoint, required params, auth) are present, but the body schema is undefined and the response format is absent. Pointer to a guide partially mitigates this, but it shifts the burden to another resource.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage but descriptions are minimal (e.g., body is just 'request body (required)'). The description adds clarity by specifying required path and body parameters and listing environment variable names for the API key, which is not in the schema. However, the body structure remains undocumented, and the description defers to an external guide.

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?

Description states 'Lookup ITAD game IDs by IDs on shop' with the endpoint path /lookup/id/shop/{shopId}/v1, clearly identifying it as a lookup operation for game IDs given a shop ID. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling lookup_shopid_gid_v1, but the path parameter makes its direction clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lookup_gid_title_v1 or lookup_shopid_gid_v1. It only provides required/optional parameter notes and a pointer to a guide, but no use-case context or exclusion criteria.

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