Drop Beacon

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds useful context about the time frame ('last 7 days') and data fields included (prices, brands, etc.), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs beyond the optional api_key, or pagination behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second details included data, and the third provides usage context. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and clear.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, data fields, and usage context. However, it lacks details on output format or error handling, which would be helpful since there is no output schema, leaving a minor gap.

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 schema fully documents the three parameters (api_key, category, limit). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors, but it implies filtering by category and limiting results, aligning with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get the latest EDC product drops and new releases from the last 7 days.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('EDC product drops and new releases'), and scope ('from the last 7 days'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_products' or 'get_market_trends' by focusing on recent releases.

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 context for usage: 'Useful for staying current on what's new in the EDC market.' It implies when to use this tool (for recent product updates) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using 'search_products' for broader queries.

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