Shop products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral facts beyond them: an unknown shop is an error rather than an empty list, and the product link template https://basalam.com/p/<id>. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then error semantics and link format. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 10-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, entry path, error behavior, and link output. It omits pagination behavior and return shape detail, but annotations carry the safety profile, so the gap is minor.

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 all 10 parameters including Toman prices, the sort enum, and category_id sourcing. The description's 'prices in Toman, searchable and sortable' merely restates schema content, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List one shop's products with prices in Toman, searchable and sortable.' The scoping to a single shop plus the shop_id sourcing note distinguishes it from bs_search (cross-shop search) and bs_product (single product).

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?

'Use after bs_vendor or when the user names a shop' gives an explicit trigger condition and names the predecessor tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. use bs_search for cross-shop queries), so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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