Prepare Article Request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is sent, that the real form is captcha-protected and user-executed, and that no personal data is read or sent. It also enumerates what the tool returns (market stock, product link, phone number, ready-made text), which is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the single most important fact ('Sends nothing') and organized logically. It is slightly long, with the German product-page label ('Auf Anfrage bestellbar') being marginal, but almost every sentence carries operational meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be spelled out, and the safety/execution model is fully covered. The remaining gap is undocumented semantics for sku, market, and quantity, which the 0%-coverage schema does not compensate for.

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% across 5 parameters. The description explains two of them meaningfully — needed_by as free text with a concrete example ('Freitag, 16.10.') and note as added to the generated text — but says nothing about sku, market, or quantity.

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 ('prepare') plus the resource and scenario ('asking a market to order an article that is not in stock there'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like add_to_basket (in-stock ordering) or search_products, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition (article not in stock at that market) and explicitly says the tool 'sends nothing' and that the actual request is completed by the user on toom.de. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly (e.g., add_to_basket when in stock), so it falls just short of a 5.

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