scout_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is returned (category, pricing, ratings, etc.), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or potential costs. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the purpose and one listing return values. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though the second sentence could be more elegantly integrated rather than appearing as a bulleted list in prose form.

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 that an output schema exists (which should document the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple similar siblings, the description should provide more context about when to use it and what distinguishes it from alternatives to be truly 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 with a specific verb ('Get intelligence') and resource ('any product'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'scout_company' or 'scout_competitors', which likely provide different types of intelligence.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. With multiple 'scout_' tools available (scout_batch, scout_company, scout_competitors, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes this product intelligence tool from alternatives that might also provide product-related information.

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