luceed_prodajni_uvjeti

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 nothing: not whether the call is read-only or mutating, not permissions, not pagination, not return behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a severe gap.

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, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy; the first two fragments are redundant restatements of the name and the trailing 'Actions: partneri' duplicates the schema enum. Not front-loaded with any actionable information.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned and how the partner code is used, but it says nothing about either. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool from the description alone.

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 both parameters (action enum and partneri partner code) are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax, format, or multi-code semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 restates the tool name ('Sales conditions') almost verbatim and then repeats it again ('Sales conditions for partners'), offering no distinguishing verb or scope. It nominally conveys the resource but never says what the tool actually does with it (list? fetch? filter?).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings such as luceed_partneri or luceed_prodajne_akcije, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The 'Actions: partneri' fragment only mirrors the enum in the schema rather than explaining context of use.

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