Check which products are compatible with a given product. For devices, shows required consumables (e.g., conductive gel for MIRA). For topicals, shows which devices they work with. Use when a customer asks 'what gel do I need with MIRA?' or 'does this serum work with CryoSculpt?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Product name or SKU to check compatibility for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds behavioral context (two modes for devices vs topicals) beyond annotations, enhancing 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?
Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second explains dual behavior, third gives usage examples. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds 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?
Lacks description of output format or what 'compatible' means in the response. With no output schema, the agent might need to guess the return shape. However, the examples imply a list, and the tool's simplicity partially compensates.
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 clear description for the 'product' parameter. The description adds value by explaining how the parameter is used in two compatibility scenarios (device->consumable, topical->device), which aids agent 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 uses specific verb 'Check' and resource 'compatible products', clearly distinguishes from siblings like compare_products and recommend, and gives concrete examples for devices and topicals.
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?
Explicitly states when to use with example customer queries ('what gel do I need with MIRA?', 'does this serum work with CryoSculpt?'), providing clear context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but examples suffice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is clear overlap between 'recommend' and the deprecated 'skincare_recommend', and 'shop' as a routing tool could be ambiguous with 'search_products' and 'recommend'. Descriptions help but are not fully disambiguating.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (e.g., check_inventory, compare_products), while others are single words (shop) or use a noun prefix (skincare_cart, skincare_recommend). The deprecated duplicate 'skincare_recommend' further disrupts consistency.
14 tools is well within the 3-15 range and covers the necessary functions for a skincare commerce server: product lookup, search, recommendation, comparison, compatibility, inventory, checkout, deals, research notes, and issue reporting. No excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers core commerce workflows: browsing, product details, recommendations, checkout, deals, and compatibility checks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., order history or user profile management) but are outside the apparent scope. The deprecated duplicate is a minor inefficiency.