Match product

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: Pro API key requirement and the fact that non-current matches may be upcoming or historical unless current_only is true. This gives the agent important behavioral nuance about returned data scope.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Every clause adds value: purpose, access requirement, and a clarifying flag behavior.

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?

Covers the main purpose and one key flag, but omits explanation of include_same_retailer and does not describe the output shape. With no output schema, the description could be more complete, though the tool appears simple and the open-world annotation mitigates some ambiguity.

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 coverage is low (only product_id documented). The description adds meaning for current_only by explaining that false/non-current results may include upcoming or historical matches, but it says nothing about include_same_retailer. Partial compensation; clear gap remains for one 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Find a product at other retailers.' It does not explicitly distinguish from match_by_ean, but the name and required product_id imply matching by product ID rather than EAN, which nearby sibling names make discernible. Slightly differentiated but not explicit.

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?

States a prerequisite (Pro API key required) and explains the current_only flag's effect. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like match_by_ean or compare_prices, nor does it offer exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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