Get Article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that `stock` is the available quantity capped at `quantity`, how `also_check` extends the stock check across markets, and how `availability` decodes toom's code. It also states 'Nothing is added to a basket', signaling no side effects. It does not cover authentication requirements or rate limits, but for a read-oriented tool this is substantial disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and proceeds logically through returned fields, stock semantics, and the no-basket disclaimer. Every sentence contributes, though the dense middle section could be slightly more scannable.

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 4-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains purpose, return content, stock behavior, and the absence of basket side effects. It lacks error-handling context and format hints for `market`/`also_check`, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 must compensate. It gives meaning to all four parameters: `sku` as the 'toom article number', `market` as the 'selected market', `quantity` as a cap on returned stock, and `also_check` as a list of additional markets. While it does not specify the exact format for market identifiers, it adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 specific verb and resource: 'Details of one article by its toom article number, plus stock in the market(s).' The scope is clear and an agent can tell it fetches a single product's details. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_products or compare_articles, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage by requiring a specific article number, and clarifies 'Nothing is added to a basket', which helps an agent avoid mistaking it for a basket mutation. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a valid sku or market).

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