lookup_shopid_gid_v1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only discloses the HTTP method, required/optional fields, and a reference to an external guide. It implies a read-only lookup but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond the optional API key. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a terse endpoint notation and lists required/optional info efficiently. The mixed English/Chinese wording slightly disrupts flow but does not waste words.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the body structure, the meaning of 'game IDs on shop', or return values, and it defers to an external guide. This makes it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional resources.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning: it confirms body is required and mentions the API key, and the phrase 'by ITAD game IDs' hints that the body contains those IDs. However, the schema descriptions themselves are trivial (e.g., 'request body'), so the description does not significantly enrich parameter understanding.

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 function: 'Lookup game IDs on shop by ITAD game IDs.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_gid_shopid_v1, which likely performs the reverse mapping. The endpoint format further reinforces the purpose.

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 usage context by listing required parameters (path: shopId, body) and optional API key, and points to a resource for full instructions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose and required fields give a clear indication of when to use this tool.

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