luceed_cjenik

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 says nothing about read-only status, return format, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a critical gap for an agent trying to call it safely.

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 very short but suffers from under-specification rather than conciseness. It is front-loaded with the resource name, yet the fragment 'Actions: lista' is redundant with the schema and wastes space that could carry usage or behavior details.

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 the low complexity (one enum parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It fails to state what the tool returns or when to use it, leaving the agent unable to invoke it with confidence. A simple read tool still needs a clear purpose statement.

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%, and the single action parameter has an enum with a description. The description mentions the action 'lista' but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 identifies the resource ('Service partner price list') and the action ('lista'), so an agent can roughly infer it lists service partner price list data. However, there is no explicit verb and the phrasing 'Price list: Service partner price list' is repetitive, leaving purpose vague. Sibling differentiation is weak against tools like luceed_cijene and luceed_cjenik_partner.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or any of the many sibling tools. An agent must guess entirely from the name and action enum.

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