favorites

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

With no annotations provided, the description relies entirely on its own content for behavioral disclosure. It only states the data origin without mentioning any side effects, the meaning of 'sync' (refresh), or the nature of 'stats', leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's 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 a single concise sentence that quickly conveys the basic purpose. However, it lacks any structural breakdown or additional detail that would make the sentence more informative, making it adequately concise but not exemplary.

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 annotations and output schema, the description must carry more weight, but it fails to explain the varying behaviors of the 'type' parameter or any return format. The tool appears too complex for such a brief description, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.

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 documents 'type' with an enum and a short description, but 'limit' is left undocumented. The description adds no explanation for either parameter, especially 'limit', so it does not compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 indicates that the tool provides purchase history from the 'previously purchased' API, specifying both the resource and the source. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'orders' or 'deals', which may serve a similar purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or how to choose among the 'type' values (products, brands, stats, sync). No context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate usage.

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