luceed_artikli_popusti

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the tool returns on-sale articles. It omits permissions, pagination, whether results are filtered by company/warehouse, and any rate or scope limits.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core resource before the action list. Slightly terse and fragmented, but nothing wasted.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining what 'lista' versus 'sifra' return and how the results are scoped. It does none of this, leaving the agent under-informed for a two-action tool.

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 'action' (enum lista/sifra) and 'sifra' (article code). The description merely repeats the two action names without explaining what each returns or how they differ, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (articles currently on sale) with a gloss for the native term 'artiklipopusti', which is helpful. But it gives no differentiation from closely named siblings like luceed_akcije, luceed_prodajne_akcije, luceed_cijene or luceed_cjenik, so an agent cannot confidently pick this over them.

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 lists the two action values but never says when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for pricing/promotion data. No usage context is provided at all.

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