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

The description reveals the critical behavioral trait: the tool is read-only when confirm=false and mutating when confirm=true, going beyond the annotations which only indicate global readOnlyHint=false. It also addresses handling of products requiring option selection.

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 well-structured sentences cover the main action, the two-phase behavior, and an edge case. Every sentence is necessary and no redundant 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and partial annotations, the description covers core behavior and an important edge case (options). It could optionally describe the preview return format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to url (the product to add), clarifies confirm's role (preview vs add), and explains quantity's default and max. The mention of 'default option' for products with options provides additional context not in the schema.

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 adds a product to the cart, with a two-step process using confirm flag. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cart, remove_from_cart, and proceed_to_checkout by focusing on adding and previewing.

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 explicitly explains when to use confirm=false (preview) and confirm=true (actual add). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like using get_cart after adding, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it summarizes embedded JSON blobs and their key skeleton, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: first states the function, second states usage context. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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?

For a simple one-param tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description explains purpose and usage adequately. Could mention what 'key skeleton' entails, but overall sufficient.

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 has one parameter (url) with 0% description coverage. The description implies the url is the page to debug, but does not explicitly describe it. For a single obvious parameter, this is adequate but adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 summarizes embedded JSON blobs on a Coupang page and their key skeleton, used when extraction breaks. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are all e-commerce actions.

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 explicitly says 'Use when extraction breaks (markup drift) to find the new keys/selectors.' This provides clear context for when to use, though no alternative tools are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the session requirement, which is useful beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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?

Tool is simple with no parameters; description covers purpose, prerequisites, and read-only nature. Could specify return format but sufficient given context.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details but hints at returning cart contents.

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 verb (Read) and resource (cart contents), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_to_cart and remove_from_cart.

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?

It mentions a prerequisite (logged-in Chrome session) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives. The context of sibling tools makes when-to-use clear.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the prerequisite of a logged-in Chrome session. This goes beyond annotations by specifying an environmental requirement, though the read-only aspect is redundant.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core function, constraints, and prerequisite.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides all essential context: what it does, read-only nature, and a critical prerequisite. It is completely adequate for the complexity.

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?

There are no parameters (0), so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate given the schema is fully covered.

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 reads order history and delivery status, specifies it's read-only, and mentions the prerequisite of a logged-in Chrome session. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which involve cart, product details, or checkout operations.

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 includes a usage condition ('requires a logged-in Chrome session') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, given the distinct purpose and no similar tools, this is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by revealing the extraction method (JSON-LD/embedded data first, implying web scraping) and that it opens a product page. This context goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with purpose and key data points. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema and a web scraping tool, the description lists extracted fields but does not describe the output format or structure. It also does not mention potential limitations (e.g., failure modes, rate limiting). Adequate 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?

The sole parameter 'url' has 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'Open a Coupang product page,' which implies the url should be a product page, but it does not specify the expected URL format, whether relative/absolute, or what happens with invalid URLs. This provides little additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens a product page and extracts specific details (price, rating, review count, delivery info), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_products or get_product_reviews. The verb 'open' and 'extract' combined with the specific data points make the purpose highly unambiguous.

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 for obtaining details the official API cannot provide, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_product_reviews for reviews only. No 'when not to use' or prerequisite guidance is given.

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

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

Adds context beyond annotations: opens browser, scrolls, extracts up to 10 reviews. No contradiction with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.

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, no fluff. Front-loaded with action and return info.

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?

No output schema; description mentions return of author, date, rating, text but not structure or pagination. Adequate for basic understanding but incomplete.

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 has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. Description only clarifies the 'limit' parameter (up to 10) but does not explain 'url' or 'maxTextLength'.

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?

Description states verb 'extract' and resource 'individual reviews' from a product page. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_product_detail' and 'search_products'.

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?

Implied usage for getting reviews but no explicit when-not or alternatives. Could mention sibling tools like 'get_product_detail' for product info.

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

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

Beyond annotations (openWorldHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'The tab is left open in the user's browser' and 'This tool NEVER clicks the pay button — the final payment is always done by the human.' No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: action, constraint, usage pattern. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the outcome (order sheet opened, tab left open) and the two-step process. It could mention error conditions (e.g., empty cart), but completeness is high given low complexity.

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% with a good description of the 'confirm' parameter. The description reiterates the two-step pattern but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Open the order sheet (pre-payment page) from the cart and STOP.' It uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('order sheet'), and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools as the only one dealing with checkout.

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 explicit usage guidance: call without 'confirm' to preview the cart, then with 'confirm=true' to open the order sheet. It also states the tool NEVER clicks the pay button, clarifying when the human must act. It does not explicitly list when NOT to use it, but the sibling list contains no other checkout tool, so the guidance is clear.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the confirm parameter controls preview vs actual removal, and the tool returns matching items when confirm=false. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no redundant information. Critical behavior is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential workflow. It could mention the return format of the preview step, but overall completeness is high.

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 describes productName with partial match, but lacks description for confirm. The description compensates by explaining confirm's role (preview vs removal). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action ('Remove an item from the cart') and distinguishes itself from siblings like add_to_cart (adds) and get_cart (reads). The two-step process with confirm parameter is clearly explained.

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 usage guidance: use confirm=false to preview matching items, then narrow to one match and call again with confirm=true to remove. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the two-step pattern is well-defined.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by specifying that the tool opens the search page in the user's own Chrome and requires a remote debugging port. This clarifies the non-API nature and the reliance on the user's browser state.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each adding essential information: the action, the no-API-key note, and the prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler text.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., search results or product list). It covers usage context and prerequisites but not the result format or pagination behavior, leaving a notable 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (keyword, limit, sortBy, rocketOnly). The agent must infer meaning from parameter names and type/enum constraints, which are somewhat self-explanatory but lack explicit guidance.

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 Coupang by opening the search page in the user's own Chrome browser, which is a specific verb-resource combination. The title also mentions 'products', and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_cart and get_product_detail by focusing on the search function.

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 that no API key is needed and that Chrome must be running with a specific debugging port, providing prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as API-based searches, or when not to use it.

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