gs1_verify_gtin_raw

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

Without annotations, the description conveys that the tool performs a read-only query ('Consulta') and returns raw data, implying no transformation or side effects. It lists the output structure, but does not address error handling (e.g., invalid GTIN or API failure) or potential variability in the payload. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 cover purpose and use case. It avoids redundant phrasing and is well-structured, with the main functionality stated first and a rationale for using the tool second. No unnecessary details are included.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides essential context: it names the resource, mentions the raw payload and specific fields, and gives a usage scenario. It does not cover edge cases or error behavior, but for a simple query tool, this level of detail is reasonably complete. The reference to a sibling tool aids in placement.

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 parameter schema descriptions are clear: gtin is a string of 8-14 digits, and environment is an enum with production/homologacao. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficiently descriptive. No ambiguity exists for the agent to misinterpret the parameters.

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: it queries the GS1 Verified API and returns the raw JSON payload exactly as received. It specifies the resource (GS1 Verified API) and the verb (consulta/retorna), and names the expected fields (dadosInternacionais, dadosNacionais, verificacao). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool by emphasizing the raw output, 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 a clear use case: it is useful when the consumer needs fields not exposed by gs1_verify_gtin. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when the processed output is sufficient), leaving some inference to the agent. The mention of the alternative tool offers sufficient guidance for most scenarios.

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