Seller profile and products

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable clarification about the reputation metric semantics ('Percentages are the share of good orders (100 = never late / never cancelled / never returned)'), which is not in annotations and helps interpret results. It does not discuss output schema details, but the presence of an output schema lessens that burden.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states what the tool does, second gives usage guidance, third clarifies metric semantics. It could be slightly more efficient, but every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation: it clarifies the meaning of the reputation metrics, which is neither in annotations nor schema. It doesn't explain pagination or sorting behavior, but the schema covers those parameters. Complete enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (page, sort, seller_code, in_stock_only) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get a marketplace seller's reputation ... and products') and enumerates the reputation facets (rating 0-5, on-time shipping, cancellations, returns). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like dk_product, dk_best_sellers, or dk_reviews, which target products or reviews rather than seller profiles.

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?

Provides explicit context for use ('Use before recommending an offer from a seller you don't know'), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It does not, however, name alternative siblings or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when the seller is already known), leaving some guidance implicit.

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