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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the basic add action and prerequisite workflow, but it does not mention authentication requirements, duplicate behavior, whether the tool can auto-create a wishlist, or what happens if wishlistId is omitted. The internal contradiction between the description and the schema's name parameter further reduces transparency.

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 wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite guidance follows naturally. It is concise without being under-specified in structure.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs more information about auth, how to choose between wishlistId and name, and duplicate handling. The description mentions key prerequisite tools but leaves the auto-create ambiguity unresolved, so it is not complete enough for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful practical context for productId by pointing to search_products, but it does not clarify the relationship between wishlistId and name, leaving the schema to carry most parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: add a product to a Webhallen wishlist. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like create_wishlist, delete_wishlist, and list_wishlists because the action is item-level addition rather than list management.

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 names two sibling tools and their preconditions: use search_products to get the product ID and use create_wishlist if the list does not exist. However, the input schema's name parameter says 'If wishlist doesn't exist, create one with this name,' which slightly conflicts with the instruction to use create_wishlist first, muddying when this tool should create versus only add.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a wishlist and an office use case, but does not disclose required authentication, ownership, visibility/sharing behavior, or what happens after creation.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the use case is stated immediately afterward.

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 is simple with one documented parameter, but the absence of annotations and an output schema leaves gaps around whether login is required and what the response will contain. These are relevant for a create operation, so the description is only minimally 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'name' is already described in the schema as 'Name for the wishlist'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 a specific action ('Create a new Webhallen wishlist') and even includes the Swedish term 'önskelista' for clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_wishlists, get_wishlist, add_to_wishlist, and delete_wishlist.

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 phrase 'Use this to create a shared shopping list for the office' gives a clear use case and context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use add_to_wishlist to add items', so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing destructive behavior. It does so clearly by warning that the wishlist and all its contents will be deleted, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the bare word 'delete'.

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 redundant wording. Every word adds value by specifying the action, the resource, and the destructive scope.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the core behavior and scope. It does not discuss error cases or permissions, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the schema already documents wishlistId as a number. The description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Delete', the resource 'Webhallen wishlist', and the scope 'all its contents', making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_wishlists, create_wishlist, and add_to_wishlist.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It relies entirely on the tool name and an implicit interpretation of 'Delete'.

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 verb 'Get' makes the read-only nature evident, and the second sentence clarifies that the result provides product information for verification. It does not discuss error behavior or authentication, but for a simple single-ID lookup the essential behavioral contract is clear.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a practical usage context that helps an agent decide when to invoke the tool.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully described schema, this description provides enough context to call it correctly. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and no note about failure behavior or returned data shape, but the simplicity of the operation limits the impact.

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 covers the only parameter, productId, with a description already. The tool description only repeats the 'by ID' concept and adds no new semantic detail such as format, constraints, or source information, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: 'Get details about a specific Webhallen product by ID.' It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_products, which is about discovering products rather than retrieving one exact product by ID.

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?

Gives a concrete use case: verifying product info before adding to a shared wishlist. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates read-only intent and that all products are returned, but it does not cover error behavior, permissions, pagination, or response structure.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The core action and target are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful output context. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read operation, the description is adequate for understanding what the tool does and what it returns. However, with no output schema and no annotations, details like return format, failure behavior, and required auth are missing.

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%, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema already documents wishlistId as 'Wishlist ID'.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('specific wishlist'), and the retrieval key ('by ID'), and clarifies output ('contents...all products'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_wishlists and get_product.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies this is for retrieving one known wishlist rather than enumerating wishlists, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_wishlists or other siblings. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only listing operation and promises IDs/contents, but it does not disclose login requirements, empty-result behavior, or what 'shared' means for visibility and access. This is not ideal but is adequate for a simple list operation.

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 first sentence is concise and informative. The second sentence, 'This shows the shared shopping lists,' is largely redundant with the first and introduces ambiguity about whether the lists are personal or shared, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resources, the scope ('all'), and the important returned fields (IDs and contents). The main soft spot is the unresolved 'shared shopping lists' phrasing and the lack of an explicit authentication note, but overall the description is sufficient 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden on the description. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4; no parameter information is missing or unclear.

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 ('List'), resource ('all your Webhallen wishlists'), and the returned data ('IDs and contents'). The qualifier 'all' clearly distinguishes it from get_wishlist, which presumably targets a single wishlist.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need the full set of wishlists rather than one specific list. However, it does not explicitly name get_wishlist as the single-list alternative or state when not to use this tool.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action and prerequisite. It does not disclose session/credential behavior, side effects, failure modes, or how the env-var alternative interacts with a login call.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then add the prerequisite and the env-var alternative with 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?

For a simple two-parameter auth tool, the description covers what it does, when it is needed, and an alternative setup. It omits response/error behavior, but no output schema exists and the usage context is otherwise clear enough.

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 the parameter descriptions already document both username and password. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond restating that login uses them, keeping this at baseline.

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 ('Log in') and resource ('Webhallen'), and clearly frames it as an authentication step distinct from the sibling wishlist/product tools. An agent can immediately tell this is the auth gate, not a data operation.

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?

Explicitly says this is required before using wishlist tools and offers an alternative (setting environment variables) that avoids the call. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases beyond the env-var alternative, but the auth context 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the returned fields and that login is not required, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, result limits, or that this is a read-only operation, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it returns, and what to do with the results. The most important facts are front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains return values, the workflow with add_to_wishlist, and authentication. Minor omissions like pagination limits or default category behavior prevent a 5.

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 the baseline is 3. The description confirms 'query' means keyword and adds the purpose of the returned product IDs, but it doesn't add significant new meaning to 'page' or 'categoryId' beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('products on Webhallen'), and the result shape ('product list with IDs, names, prices, and stock info'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_product, which implies fetching a single product, and from wishlist 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 gives clear context: search by keyword to get product IDs for use with add_to_wishlist, and notes that no login is required. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the purpose is sufficiently scoped that an agent can infer the intended trigger.

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