Probe Lazada Page

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

The description discloses a concrete side effect beyond the annotations: 'It may write a local screenshot and report under debug/.' This is valuable because readOnlyHint is false and destructiveHint is false, so the agent learns that the tool can create local artifacts without being told that by the structured metadata. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 entire description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the most important information: when to use the tool, the scope restriction, and the side effects. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 small diagnostic tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key operational context: allowed inputs, triggering condition, and side effects. It does not describe the output content or the behavior on non-allowlisted URLs, but the output schema and the explicit 'only for an allowlisted URL' restriction mitigate these gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It partially does: 'allowlisted Lazada Singapore URL' gives selection criteria for the url parameter, and 'may write a local screenshot' implies the role of the screenshot boolean. However, it does not explicitly state how the screenshot parameter controls behavior, defaults, or what the report contains, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies this as a diagnostic tool for probing a Lazada Singapore page, with a specific trigger condition ('when a selector fails'). This distinguishes it from the broader e-commerce action tools in the sibling list, which perform operations like login, search, cart, and order placement.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this diagnostic only for an allowlisted Lazada Singapore URL when a selector fails.' This clearly states when the tool is appropriate and imposes a scope restriction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'only' and 'diagnostic' framing provides strong guidance.

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