gs1_verify_gtin

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

The description mentions the need for credentials and the output nature (normalized summary), but does not disclose potential error behaviors, rate limits, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it is adequate but not rich in behavioral details.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality, required credentials, and an important alternative. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary details, making it easy to parse.

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?

While it lists the fields returned in the summary, it does not describe the output format in detail (e.g., JSON structure, field types, or potential error responses). However, given the tool's simplicity and that the sibling raw tool handles raw output, this is sufficient for most use cases, leaving only minor 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both 'gtin' and 'environment' (including enum values and default behavior). The tool description adds little beyond restating the purpose, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: querying a GTIN via the Verified by GS1 API (GS1 Brasil) and returning a normalized summary with specific fields (marca, descrição, GPC, NCM, CEST, imagens, peso, dimensões, licenciado). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool gs1_verify_gtin_raw by emphasizing the normalized format, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it requires GS1BR_* credentials in environment variables, and it directs users to gs1_verify_gtin_raw for raw structure. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving little to inference.

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