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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is destructive. It only says 'updating', which is insufficient.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it is too vague to be fully effective.

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 lacks context about return values, how the amount interacts with current inventory, and does not leverage the presence of an output schema to add clarity. Sibling tools are not compared.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but does not contradict it either.

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 it updates inventory by adjusting the amount, but it is ambiguous whether it sets absolute amount or adds a delta, especially given sibling tools Increase_inventory and Decrease_inventory.

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?

No guidance on when to use Adjust_inventory versus Increase_inventory or Decrease_inventory. The description does not mention any prerequisites or conditions.

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 must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, required permissions, irreversibility, or what happens upon cancellation, making it completely insufficient.

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 short, but it is under-specified. Conciseness is valued, but here it comes at the cost of missing critical information, resulting in an ineffective description.

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?

Even for a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain the output, prerequisites (e.g., order must exist), or post-conditions, making it contextually incomplete.

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 only 50% (one of two parameters has a description). The main description adds no parameter-level context beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 'An API for cancel order' essentially restates the tool name 'Cancel_Order' without adding specificity about what cancellation entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'Order_detail' or 'Mark_as_paid_COD'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., order status), or alternatives. The description is entirely absent of usage context.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool generates a checkout link, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, or whether it creates a record. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 sentence, achieving maximal conciseness. However, a minor grammatical error ('for generate' instead of 'to generate') slightly detracts from clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects, with an output schema). The description covers the basic purpose, but fails to mention that the tool likely returns the generated link or any other contextual details. Given the output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate but not 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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including constraints (e.g., quantity range). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 purpose: to generate a checkout link. It uses a specific verb and resource, matching the tool name. While there are no similar sibling tools for differentiation, the purpose is 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and purpose 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 present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'API for product creation' without mentioning side effects, authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 sentence plus an HTML link, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters and nested objects, the description is too minimal. It does not provide a high-level overview of what the tool does (e.g., creates a full product with variants) or mention the 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 has 100% description coverage, so the description adds minimal extra value. The link for categoryId is a small addition, but overall it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 'API for product creation', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'Create_product_variants', which could lead to confusion about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updates via 'Update_product_detail'). The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, authentication requirements, or side effects like inventory adjustments.

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 very short but fails to convey critical information. It is not front-loaded with the most important details, making it less helpful despite its brevity.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested objects, three required parameters), the description is too sparse. It does not reference the output schema or explain the relationship between 'variantOptions' and 'variants'.

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% description coverage for all parameters, but the tool description itself adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'product variants creation', which matches the tool name and distinguishes from 'Create_product' and other sibling tools. However, it is generic and does not specify what constitutes a product variant or that it requires an existing product ID.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'Create_product'. No prerequisites or conditions (e.g., product must exist) are mentioned.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It implies a mutation operation but does not detail idempotency, error handling, or checks like insufficient inventory. The parameter constraint '0 < amount <= availableNumber' is embedded in schema description, adding some 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 a single sentence, efficient but slightly wordy (e.g., 'API for updating inventory'). It could be more direct. No structural issues.

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 has an output schema (not provided) and many similar sibling tools, the description lacks context for return values and does not help the agent distinguish when to use this tool over others like 'Adjust_inventory' or 'Increase_inventory'.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The overall description adds minimal value beyond that, only noting the operation decreases from current inventory. 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 decreases inventory amount, specifying the verb and resource. However, it could better distinguish from siblings like 'Increase_inventory' or 'Adjust_inventory' by explicitly saying it reduces stock.

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 the context for decreasing inventory, such as handling returns or manual adjustments, nor does it exclude scenarios better suited for other tools.

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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'deletion' without indicating whether the operation is irreversible, requires permissions, or affects related data.

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 short but lacks substance. It is essentially a tautology of the tool name, offering no additional value.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description could still mention effects like permanence or cascading actions. It fails to provide complete context.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 identifies the tool as for product deletion, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like Delete_product_variant. However, it lacks further detail on the scope or behavior.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adjusting inventory or cancelling orders. No prerequisites or usage context 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?

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'deletion' without disclosing permanence, cascading effects, or authorization needs. For a destructive action, more behavioral context is expected.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not include any additional context or formatting. It is functional but could benefit from more substance without being verbose.

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 is a deletion operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the deletion's implications, error handling, or prerequisites. It only states the basic purpose, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 is for product variant deletion. It distinguishes from sibling tools like Create_product_variants and Update_product_variant_detail. However, it could be more specific about the identification logic (product id + variant name/value), which is clarified in 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?

No guidance on when to use versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., variant must exist), nor exclusions or when not to use (e.g., if variant is in use). Sibling tools exist for creating and updating, but no comparative context is 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 fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result limits, or side effects. It only states the basic purpose, leaving the agent uninformed about important runtime characteristics.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and does not front-load the most critical information. It is minimal but not wasteful, earning a middle score.

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 has 12 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is insufficient. It does not mention pagination, sorting, default ordering, or what happens when no parameters are provided. The agent needs more context to use this tool correctly.

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% description coverage, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by condition', which is already implied by the many filter parameters. Thus, the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 it gets a list of orders by condition, which clearly indicates the tool's function of retrieving filtered order lists. However, it does not specify that the list supports pagination, sorting, and multiple filter parameters, which are evident from the schema but not mentioned in the description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like Order_detail (which retrieves a single order) or other list tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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 burden. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe pagination behavior or any 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 a single sentence, which is concise but too brief. It could include more useful information, so it is average in conciseness.

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 four parameters and existence of an output schema, the description lacks details on pagination, filtering behavior, and return structure. It is incomplete for a tool with moderate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains each parameter well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 retrieves a list of products, using a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'Get_all_orders'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for creating, updating, or deleting products, but the description does not clarify that this is for fetching only.

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 exist, so description carries full burden. It specifies the operation (increasing from current on hand) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error handling. Adequate but could be richer.

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?

Single sentence, to the point, no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet for parameters) but fine.

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?

Low complexity tool with output schema (not provided but exists). Description lacks success/error behavior or return format. Adequate for simple operation but not fully self-contained.

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% with clear parameter descriptions and examples. The description adds marginal value by clarifying 'from the current inventory on hand', but this is minimally additive beyond 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?

The description clearly states it increases inventory amount from current on hand, with specific verb 'increasing' and resource 'inventory'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'Decrease_inventory' and 'Adjust_inventory'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Adjust_inventory', 'Decrease_inventory'). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes payment status to Paid and order status to Complete, which is minimal behavioral info. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., order must be COD), idempotency, or side effects for already paid orders.

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 sentence, no redundant words. However, grammatical awkwardness ('by Mark payment status') slightly reduces clarity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. But the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., order must be COD and not already paid) and error conditions. Somewhat incomplete for a mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter with description 'Order number'). The tool description ('selected order') adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 specifies the action (update order status to Complete by marking payment as Paid) and the resource (selected COD orders). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like Mark_as_ship and Cancel_Order by focusing on COD payment method.

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 that this tool is specifically for orders with COD payment method ('that payment method is COD'). While it does not explicitly state alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool versus 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits any side effects, reversibility, error cases, or permission requirements. This is minimal for a status-changing tool.

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 sentence, front-loading the primary action. It is concise with no wasted 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for a tool with three parameters and sibling tools. It does not explain optionality of trackingNumber and trackingUrl, nor does it highlight any constraints. An agent may misinterpret required vs optional fields.

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 only 33% (one of three parameters has a description). The description adds 'add tracking number' but does not clarify which parameter corresponds to that, nor does it explain trackingUrl's role or optionality. The meaning is not significantly enhanced beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool updates order status to Complete by marking shipment as shipped and adding a tracking number. It is specific about verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like Update_tracking_number or Mark_as_paid_COD, which have similar scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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 behavioral traits. It only states 'getting' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or response format. The description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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 very concise (6 words), but is under-specified. It is not padded with fluff, but the brevity reduces informativeness. An ideal concise description would be a bit more specific.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, output schema present), the description barely meets minimum completeness. It fails to explain what constitutes an 'order detail' or any constraints, relying entirely on the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'orderNo' described as 'Order number'. The description adds 'order detail' context but does not improve upon the schema's existing documentation. 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 'An API for getting an order detail' clearly states the verb (getting) and resource (order detail). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'Get_all_orders' by implying a single-order query, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'Get_all_orders' or 'Settlement_detail'. No prerequisites or context for invocation.

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 must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'downloading parcel label', omitting details like API method (GET/POST), response format, error handling, or authorization needs.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description lacks practical usage context: how to invoke (e.g., initiates download), dependencies (order must exist), and expected output format.

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%, and parameters are well-documented with enums and descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter info, so 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 is for 'downloading parcel label', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like order management or inventory 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., order must be shipped), or when not to use it. Agent has no context for proper invocation.

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?

The description mentions 'proxy' and 'forward', implying no storage of messages, but provides no details on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error states. With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it falls short.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though minor rewording could improve clarity.

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 has 2 required parameters and an output schema, the description does not mention return values or behavior on success/failure. It lacks completeness for an agent to use safely without additional context.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'orderNo' has a description; 'messages' items have no schema). The description says 'receive message object' but does not explain the expected structure of the message array items, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 sends a message via a proxy to a Flex Message API. It uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('message via OA Plus flex message services'), and it is distinct from sibling tools that handle orders and products. However, the phrase 'proxy message services' and 'flex message api' are somewhat vague and could be more precise.

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 compared to alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it. Since there are no sibling messaging tools, missing guidance is less critical, but still absent.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'getting,' implying a read operation, but does not mention safety, authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the order doesn't exist. More detail is needed for a reliable agent invocation.

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 very short with no unnecessary words, but the phrase 'An API for' is filler. The core verb+object 'getting a settlement detail' is clear but could be more direct. Overall, it earns its place without being verbose.

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 has a single parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate but lacks explanation of what a settlement detail is and when to use it. For a simple tool, it is minimally complete but could be improved with brief context on the returned data or purpose.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter orderNo, which is described as 'Order number.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states 'getting a settlement detail,' which is a specific verb and resource, but it is vague about what a 'settlement detail' entails. The connection to the order number parameter is implied but not explicit, leaving room for ambiguity. It does not distinguish itself well from sibling tools like Order_detail.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include Order_detail and others, but the description provides no context for when Settlement_detail is appropriate, such as for financial settlement data after an order is completed.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'updating' without mentioning side effects, authorization, rate limits, or failure handling. The link for category ID is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very short (two sentences), with no fluff. However, it could be more informative without adding length. Conciseness is good, but 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 the complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description is too minimal. It does not explain prerequisites, overall effect, or how it differs from sibling tools. The output schema covers return values, but the description should provide more context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds a link for the category ID parameter but does not provide further semantic value 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 states it is for 'product detail updating,' which is clear about the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like Update_product_price or Update_product_variant_detail, though the name implies a broader scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools for specific updates (price, variant, display status), the lack of context on when to choose this generic update tool is a gap.

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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It indicates mutation and a promotion-period limitation. Missing details on side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing discounts.

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?

One sentence with a parenthetical note, no wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool updates both product-level discount and variant prices, but the description only mentions 'product' scope. No mention of output schema or variant handling. Some gaps remain.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It restates the tool's purpose but does not clarify parameter interactions or constraints beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool updates prices and instant discounts on a product, and notes a constraint (cannot edit during promotions). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like Update_product_detail or Update_product_variant_detail.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Only a constraint on promotion periods is provided, but no context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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 provided, and the description offers no behavioral details beyond 'updating'. It doesn't disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., product existence), or what happens to the current status.

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 sentence, but it is grammatically awkward ('An API for product's display status updating'). It is concise but not well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for a mutation tool. It lacks context about immediate effects, error conditions, or integration with other processes like inventory or orders.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, status with enum) are well-described in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond 'updating display status', so 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 updates a product's display status. It uses a specific verb 'updating' and resource 'product's display status', distinguishing it from siblings like Update_product_detail or Update_product_price.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify that this is appropriate when only the display status needs to change, not other product details.

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 must disclose behavior. It only says 'update' without clarifying if it's a partial or full update, permissions needed, or whether it affects products with/without variants consistently. No mention of side effects or idempotency.

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 sentence, but it contains ambiguous phrasing ('both with and without variant product') that reduces clarity. It could be more concise and precise, but it's not overly long.

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 8 parameters, sibling tools, and an output schema (though not shown), the description lacks context about the update behavior, response structure, and how it handles different product types. Incomplete for a mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It doesn't explain relationships or constraints beyond 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?

The description states it updates variant detail, but it's vague: 'specific variant detail' and 'both with and without variant product' is unclear. It doesn't specify which fields can be updated, relying on schema. Compared to sibling tools like Update_product_detail, it distinguishes by targeting variants, but purpose is not sharply defined.

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 like Update_product_detail, Create_product_variants, or Delete_product_variant. No context on prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios.

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 provided, so description must cover behavioral aspects. Only states a prerequisite (shipment status Shipped) and the update action. Does not disclose idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects (e.g., overwriting previous tracking number).

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with verb and object. Efficient but could be structured for clarity (e.g., bullet points). No wasted 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?

Has output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, for a simple update tool, description should cover parameter usage, conditions, and potential errors. Only the prerequisite is mentioned. Missing details like required vs optional parameters beyond schema and what happens if order not found.

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 has 3 parameters with 33% description coverage. Description adds the shipment status condition for orderNo context, but does not elaborate on trackingNumber or trackingUrl meaning, validation, or format beyond the examples. Does not compensate for low schema 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?

Describes specific action (update tracking number) for a specific resource (selected order) under a condition (shipment status is Shipped). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like Mark_as_ship or Cancel_Order.

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?

States when to use: only when shipment status is Shipped. Implicitly excludes use when status is not Shipped. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but context is clear.

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