Read the chatbot HATEOAS navigation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the live nature of the data ('live chatbotapi.alza.cz navigation for the current visitor'), the row reference (W18), and the server-side requirement for the country field. It also explicitly states 'Read-only; no token required', which adds auth context not present in annotations. Minor gap: it doesn't describe pagination or response size, but the output schema exists and the tool is a simple read.

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: it opens with the core action and resource, then lists the specific actions, then gives usage context, then the parameter note, then the read-only/auth note. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns (navigation actions with hrefs and parameters), when to use it, the one parameter's server requirement, and the auth/safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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%, so the schema already documents the country parameter fully. The description adds value by explaining why the parameter matters ('required by the server') and its default behavior ('defaults to CZ'), which goes beyond the schema's static description. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 applies, and the added server-requirement context justifies a 4.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('live chatbotapi.alza.cz navigation for the current visitor'), and enumerates the exact action types exposed (chatbotInitializeChatAction, chatbotReinitializeChatAction, metadata, rating actions). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'before chat_send to discover the current actions', which clearly separates it from chat_send.

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 says when to use the tool: 'Use when inspecting what Alza's live chatbot offers for a page, or before chat_send to discover the current actions.' It also provides a key server requirement ('The country query field is required by the server (defaults to CZ)'). This gives clear context and a practical trigger condition.

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