scan_barcode

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioural burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements, no rate limits, no statement of what happens if a GTIN is not found, and no indication of whether a single or batched response comes back. Only the existence of an output schema relieves it of describing return values.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a concrete example and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the undocumented second parameter.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the definition leaves key gaps: the store_type parameter's meaning and valid values, and any behavioural contract for missing or invalid barcodes. The output schema covers return values, but the input side remains under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the format of 'gtins' via the EAN example array, but 'store_type' — a parameter with a default of ONLINE and no enum — is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess what values are valid and what the default means.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up products by barcode') and names the identifier standard (EAN/GTIN), which separates it from keyword-based siblings like search_products or autocomplete. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: the barcode framing tells an agent this is the tool for scanning a known code rather than browsing or searching. There is no statement of when to prefer it over search_products, nor any note on batch size, unknown-GTIN behaviour, or prerequisites.

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