Similar products

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail beyond them: the queried product itself is excluded from results, which shapes how the agent interprets the output set. It does not discuss result volume or defaults, but that is largely schema territory.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the usage conditions; no padding or repetition of schema details. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still names the key payload fields. Purpose, trigger conditions, scope exclusion, and a recommended parameter pairing are all present, leaving nothing material missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by recommending a specific parameter combination ('kind=\'visual\', sort=\'cheapest\') tied to a concrete user goal, which is semantic guidance the schema's per-field text does not supply.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Find products like this one at other shops') and enumerates the data returned (prices, discount, stock, shop), plus the scope exclusion ('The product itself is left out'). It is clearly distinguishable from sh_product or sh_search in intent, though it does not explicitly name any sibling it competes with, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions: use when the product is out of stock, too expensive, or to check whether another shop sells it cheaper. It even supplies the parameter pairing (kind='visual', sort='cheapest') for that scenario. It stops short of naming alternatives such as sh_find_cheapest for price-hunting, so no exclusion routing is provided.

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