repairdesk_shop_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('look up') and hints at a dependency for problems ('by device'), but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, requires authentication, or handles pagination. The description lacks essential behavioral context for an agent to call it safely without assumptions.

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 compact, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It efficiently enumerates the lookup types without unnecessary filler. While the list is long, it is still concise and well-structured, earning a high but not perfect score for brevity.

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's complexity (7 parameters, one required, low schema coverage, no output schema), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, required dependencies (e.g., device_id for problems), or how to effectively use filters. An agent would need to infer much from the sparse schema descriptions, making the tool under-documented.

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 only 43% (only brand, device_id, and device_name have descriptions), so the description needs to compensate by explaining parameter usage. However, it only lists the lookup enum values and mentions 'problems (by device)' without tying that to the device_id parameter. It does not clarify the role of page, pagesize, keyword, or how filters work, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 uses a clear verb ('Look up') and a specific resource ('reference data'), then enumerates the exact entity types supported. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like repairdesk_tickets or repairdesk_inventory, which handle operational entities rather than lookups.

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 this tool is for retrieving reference data, and its distinct name and content signal a different usage context from the sibling tools. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor exclusions for when not to use it. The guidance is only implied by the tool's nature, not stated.

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