Drop Beacon

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context on the search scope (100,000+ products, 1,000+ brands) and return fields (titles, prices, etc.), but doesn't mention rate limits, auth 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details and scope. Both sentences are informative with zero waste, efficiently covering search functionality, output, and dataset scale without redundancy.

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 (search with 5 optional params), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks output schema, but describes return values (titles, prices, etc.) and scope. However, it doesn't detail error handling or exact response structure, leaving minor gaps.

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 all 5 parameters. The description mentions search by keyword, category, brand, or material, aligning with the schema but not adding extra meaning. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate beyond what's already structured.

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 searches for EDC products using specific criteria (keyword, category, brand, material) and returns detailed product information. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on broad search rather than availability checks, brand info, drops, trends, or price comparisons.

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 context by listing searchable attributes (keyword, category, brand, material) and mentioning the scope (100,000+ products, 1,000+ brands). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like check_availability or get_price_comparison, though the focus on search is clear.

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