analyze_product

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool analyzes and returns but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is unclear whether this is a read-only operation.

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 that are concise and front-loaded. However, the first sentence contains a minor inaccuracy by restricting to Mercado Libre when the schema allows Shopee. Still, every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the tool does and what it analyzes but does not fully describe the output format or clarify the marketplace scope discrepancy. It is minimally complete for straightforward use.

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 50% (product_id has a description). The description adds context about the analysis (title, photos, etc.) but does not explain the marketplace parameter or its values. It provides some added meaning but not parameter-specific detail.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Get a quality score (0-100) for any Mercado Libre product.' It distinguishes from siblings (commission, affiliate links, etc.). However, it mentions only Mercado Libre while the schema includes Shopee, causing a slight inconsistency.

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 implies usage for evaluating product quality but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_products or trending_products. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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