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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral specifics beyond the annotations: intent switches between related and complementary recommendations and limit caps results at 20. It does not describe the shape of recommendations, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action before the routing guidance. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers how to obtain a seed handle, how intent and limit behave, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 documents handle, intent values, and the default/max limit. The description's mention of intent selecting related or complementary and limit capping at 20 mostly restates the schema rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (fetch recommended product items) with scope (for one Brooklinen seed product handle), and names the sibling tools used for the adjacent task of finding handles. An agent can distinguish it from brooklinen_product and brooklinen_products without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use brooklinen_product or brooklinen_products to find source handles and browse the catalog, implying this tool is for the recommendation step once a handle is known. Clear context and named alternatives, though it stops short of an explicit 'do not use this to search the catalog' exclusion.

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