Lamoda Self-Check

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses how the probe classifies outcomes: tiered paths, inconclusive failure conditions, and the exact drift condition. This gives an agent important behavioral context it would otherwise have to infer. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded, separating purpose, conditional behavior, and return summary into a clear structure. The 'Return Format' line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it remains brief and does not bloat the definition.

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 zero-input probe with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the response, the description supplies the non-obvious semantics: what each tier checks, when failures are inconclusive, and what actually constitutes drift. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description has nothing to add for parameter semantics. The zero-parameter baseline applies cleanly.

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 centers on a specific verb and resource: it 'Probes' Lamoda's GraphQL card path (tier 1) and CDP search path (tier 2) as a structural drift canary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lamoda_search and lamoda_card, and from other marketplaces' selfchecks.

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 use as a Lamoda drift/monitoring check is clear from the 'canary' framing and the enumerated probe paths. It provides strong interpretation guidance—such as GraphQL down being inconclusive and only a reached payload failing parse smoke counting as drift—though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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