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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that recommendations are based on mined order-history association rules, which implies the behavior is data-driven rather than manual or arbitrary. It also communicates it returns 'top complementary, frequently-bought-together products' but doesn't detail the output shape, pagination, or what happens if no associations exist. This is a modest gap but not critical for a read-style recommendation tool with a clear data source.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence defines the core function and method, the second positions it against its single-product cross-sell scope, and the third lists supported platforms. It is front-loaded with the most important information, then adds routing and compatibility context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter read-style tool with a 100% parameter-documented schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, method, scope, and supported platforms, and the schema covers parameter semantics. Minor gaps: no explicit mention of the return shape (e.g., list of product IDs with scores) and no guidance on edge cases like empty results. Given the tool's simplicity and the strong schema coverage, these are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds value by framing the product_id as the 'given product' and clarifying the semantic context of 'frequently-bought-together' (mined order-history association rules). It also reinforces the limit's purpose implicitly through 'top complementary... products'. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, and the description adds contextual flavor without redundancy, a 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 states a specific verb ('recommend'), a specific resource (complementary/frequently-bought-together products for a given product), and the underlying method (mined order-history association rules). It explicitly identifies itself as the single-product cross-sell tool, distinguishing it from siblings like get_bundle_for_cart, analyze_basket, find_substitutes, and score_cross_sell without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance with concrete example user queries ('what goes with X?', 'what should I bundle with X?', etc.) and states the scope ('single-product co-purchase questions'). It also names the platform coverage (Shopify, Magento, WooCommerce), giving clear context for when this tool is applicable. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives to exclude, the phrase 'single-product cross-sell tool' combined with example queries gives strong routing guidance among the 19 siblings.

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