product-barcode-api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns sensitive MySQL credentials, but it does not mention failure modes, authorization behavior, or security considerations for handling the returned password.

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 three short sentences and every sentence earns its place: what is returned, which database it accesses, subscription requirement, and billing cost. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, low-complexity tool, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the returned values, the data domain, and the access/billing context. It is slightly limited by the lack of usage-vs-alternative context and no error or negative-case information.

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 tool has no parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no hidden input semantic gap. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully describes the input surface and the description correctly adds no redundant parameter detail.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'returns the username and password for accessing the MySQL database containing product information.' It uses a specific verb, identifies the exact resource, and is clearly distinct from the sibling product-data tools.

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 gives no guidance about when this tool should be used versus alternatives. It only mentions the $350 plan subscription and per-call billing, which is a prerequisite rather than an actionable usage guideline.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is metered (~207.26 avg credits) and uses pagination. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are side effects, rate limits, or what happens on errors. The billing information is a useful behavioral trait, but the description fails to cover other important behavioral aspects that an agent would need to know for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Lists products using pagination') and then mentions cost. No wasted words. It is clear and well-structured, though sparse in content. The brevity is appropriate for a minimal description, even if it lacks depth.

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 that the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what fields are returned, how to interpret the pagination response, or when to use this tool compared to siblings. The description only states the basic purpose and billing, leaving significant gaps in context that an agent would need to make an informed decision. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including credit costs and dependencies (e.g., historyPrices requires marketPrices=true). The description itself only mentions 'pagination' generally, adding little beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to duplicate schema details.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Lists products using pagination.' This clearly indicates the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like search or product_of_market, which might also list products. The name 'getProducts' helps differentiate, but the description alone is somewhat generic. Still, it provides a clear primary purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention search, history, or other sibling tools, nor does it state when this tool is preferred. The only directive is about pagination, which is a usage detail rather than a selection criterion. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions billing ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential failure modes, or side effects. The description is not misleading but is insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the essential purpose and billing information without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple retrieval operation, but it omits details about return values, error handling, or whether the market parameter is optional (though the schema notes it). It is not incomplete to the point of confusion, but could be more thorough given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 detailed descriptions for both parameters (barcode and market), including that market must exist in the system. The tool description adds only the synonym 'relevant store' for the market parameter, which does not significantly enhance understanding. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score 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: retrieving historical price information for a product at a specific store. It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and a distinct resource ('historical price information'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely handle search or product listings.

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 the tool is used when historical price data is needed (e.g., 'relevant store' suggests providing a market), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search or marketList. It gives some context but lacks clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over others.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Retrieves' and the zero-credit cost, which is useful. Yet it does not specify return format, ordering details beyond 'recently updated,' or any potential limitations, making it moderately transparent but not rich.

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 a single, clear sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a brief billing note. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no extraneous words.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential facts: what it returns and its cost. It could elaborate on the output structure, but for a straightforward list retrieval, the current description is adequately complete.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist. According to the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('20 most recently updated products') with a specific output scope ('along with their market prices'). This distinguishes it from siblings like getProducts or search by focusing on recency and the free billing aspect.

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 offers implied usage context: it is free and returns the latest products, so an agent would use it when these criteria are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the comparison to siblings like search or getProducts implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey the safety and behavior profile. It says 'Retrieves' and explicitly mentions billing at 0 credits, but it does not disclose caching, freshness, response shape, or any access requirements.

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 a single, direct sentence that communicates the purpose, scope, and billing cost without unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema. The description states what is returned, market names, and the billing details, which is sufficient for this low-complexity tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 what the tool does: retrieves market names used in filters. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like product_of_market or search, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'used in the filters' implies when this tool would be relevant, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-style behavior ('returns'), optional history inclusion, and metered billing ('Credits: metered (~0.67 avg)'). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention possible response shapes, errors, rate limits, or other side effects.

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 three short sentences with no filler: it states what is returned, notes the optional history behavior, and provides billing context. Every sentence earns its place and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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?

The descriptions and schema make the inputs clear and the operation simple, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain the structure of the returned 'details' or what 'relevant market price' includes. It is adequate for a straightforward lookup but leaves the agent without a clear picture of the response format or edge cases.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all four parameters. The description adds only a high-level mention of barcode and store name plus optional history, without providing semantics beyond what the input schema already states. The baseline 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 'returns the current price and details of the product based on the specified barcode and store name,' which identifies the verb, resource, and required inputs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as get_api_external_history or get_api_external_getProducts.

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 use when the caller has a barcode and market name and wants current price details, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. It also mentions 'Price history can also be included optionally' without clarifying when to use this tool instead of the sibling get_api_external_history.

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

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 discloses meaningful operational details: results are capped between 1 and 10, and billing is metered at an average cost. It does not describe error behavior or authentication, but the key cost and result-limit traits are covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and result limits, followed by billing context. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 search tool with well-documented parameters, the description captures the essential behavior, result bounds, and cost implications. It lacks output-shape details and sibling differentiation, but those are partially covered by schema parameter descriptions and not strictly required here.

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 100%, so the input schema already thoroughly documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Searches for products by barcode or name') and a concrete resource scope, plus an explicit result count range. It is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_api_external_getProducts or get_api_external_product_of_market.

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 phrase 'Searches for products by barcode or name' implies the tool is appropriate when a user needs product lookup by those keys. However, there is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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