send_shop_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description reveals important behavioral traits: message is final and cannot be retracted or modified, and rate limits apply for bulk sending. It lacks details on authentication or specific error conditions, but covers the main risks.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, API, return structure, side effects), front-loaded with the write indication, and uses concise language without unnecessary repetition.

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?

The description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, usage scenarios, API endpoint, return structure, and important side effects. It is complete for a simple write tool with one parameter and no output schema.

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?

The schema description coverage for the single parameter 'message_data' is 100% (includes description and example). The tool description does not add additional explanation beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb '發送' (send) and the resource '一般商店對話訊息' (general store conversation message). It distinguishes from the sibling 'send_order_message' by stating it is for non-order-specific messages, providing clear differentiation.

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 lists explicit use cases: marketing notifications, event announcements, proactive customer contact. It implies it should not be used for order-specific messages, with sibling 'send_order_message' serving that purpose. However, it does not include an explicit 'do not use when' statement.

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