luceed_artikli

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it never states that this is a read-only lookup, says nothing about permissions, pagination semantics (despite a 'page' param), or what the 'dokumenti'/'dodaci' actions actually do. The only weak signal is the implicit retrieval framing of 'by code, barcode, ...'.

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 resource clause is front-loaded, which is good, but roughly half the text is a raw dump of the 16 action names that exactly duplicates the schema's action enum. That listing consumes space without earning it, though the overall size remains compact.

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 16-action dispatcher with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it never explains what any individual action returns or which parameters each action requires. An agent has no way to pick the correct action or anticipate the response shape.

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 12 parameters and the action enum; baseline is 3. The description's access-dimension list loosely maps to some params (code→sifra, brand→robna_marka, attribute→atribut), but it adds no format, syntax, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 opening clause 'Products (artikli): Product catalog' names the resource clearly, and the access dimensions (by code, barcode, UID, name, group, brand, attribute, list) tell an agent what kinds of lookups are supported. It stops short of differentiating from overlapping siblings such as luceed_grupe_artikala, luceed_robne_marke, luceed_prijevodi, and luceed_catalog, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite heavy overlap with siblings that expose the same data (groups, brands, translations). The description offers no condition that would tell an agent to prefer this tool over luceed_catalog or luceed_grupe_artikala.

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