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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the bar, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the route handle is resolved to a Shopify product id before fetching, and the storefront URL is fixed server-side. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but it discloses meaningful internal mechanics beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the description then restates parameter details already present in the schema, adding redundancy. It is functional but not tightly edited.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the handle-resolution mechanic, defaults, and the handle-acquisition path, making it largely complete for a read-only recommendation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the intent (related/complementary, default related) and limit (default 10, max 20) semantics verbatim without adding syntax or nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Returns normalized recommended products for one Oh Polly product handle.' It also names the related tool (ohpolly_product) for obtaining a handle, giving the agent a clear sense of this tool's role. It stops short of fully contrasting itself with recommendation-style siblings, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 a prerequisite chain ('Use ohpolly_product to get a Oh Polly product') and documents the intent/limit options, which implies when the tool applies. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria, so usage is only implied.

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