find_product_across_web

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (not read-only). The description describes a live price check, which is a read operation, but no destructive behavior is mentioned. It adds transparency about the source (Webotee's Amazon buy-box anchor) and output details (price, class, spread, durability, fulfillment info). No contradiction 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 a single paragraph of about six sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is reasonably concise with no redundant information, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for modes). Every sentence adds value.

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's complexity (17 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input requirements, modes, and output components (price, class, spread, durability, Amazon anchor). It does not fully describe all parameters or edge cases, but it is sufficient for the primary use case.

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 65% (11 of 17 params described). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining identifier options (asin, upc, gtin, title+brand) and mode functionality. It highlights key parameters but does not cover all 17; however, it provides enough context for the main usage.

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: 'Find where one product sits across the open web — a live cross-retailer price check'. It specifies the action (find), resource (product across web), and scope (one product per call). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on brands, operators, categories, etc.

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 required inputs ('Give ONE identifier and a mode') and the four modes (price_compare, cheaper, dropship, supplier) with brief definitions. It implies when to use each mode but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives among siblings. Overall clear guidance.

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