Evaluate Product

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description. The description adds database context but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or behavior with invalid barcodes.

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, each earning its place: first states purpose, second specifies input. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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 tool has 4 params but no output schema; description covers barcode input but omits return structure, pagination, or error scenarios. Adequate for a simple read tool but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so schema already documents parameters. The description adds context for identifier (UPC/EAN) but doesn't explain context or jurisdiction parameters, which are self-explanatory from enums.

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 evaluates a product's health, ingredient safety, ownership, and regulatory flags, using Scern database. It differentiates from sibling compare_products by focusing on single-product evaluation.

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 explains when to use it (evaluate a product via barcode) but does not discuss when not to use or alternatives like compare_products. Usage is clear but no exclusions provided.

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