Product Name Resolver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function but omits details like error handling (e.g., unknown product ID), required permissions, or whether the search strategies are returned as text or structured data.

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 concise sentences deliver the purpose and value without extraneous information. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks error behavior and typical use-case context. It could mention that product IDs follow Cisco patterns or that the tool expects exact IDs.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'web search strategies,' which relates to the include_search_strategies parameter. However, it does not elaborate on the format or content of the strategies.

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 verb 'resolves' and the resources: product IDs to full product names and web search strategies. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_bugs_by_product_id by focusing on name resolution rather than bug search.

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 implies usage when converting product IDs to names, but does not explicitly state when or when not to use it, nor mention alternatives among siblings. Example: 'Helps convert technical product codes to searchable terms' suggests a pre-processing step for other tools.

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