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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns products with links and directs pricing to get_quote. It also instructs on handling empty results. For a recommendation tool, this sufficiently covers 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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds necessary guidance without any 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential behavior: recommending products, mentioning links, and referencing pricing. The instruction for empty results adds completeness. The tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 single parameter 'purpose' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by providing examples of needs ('trade fair', 'gift packaging') and implies it is a free-text customer need. This adequately compensates for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb 'Recommend' and clearly identifies the resource 'barwa.pl products'. It provides concrete examples ('something for a trade fair', 'gift packaging') that distinguish it from sibling tools like list_products or get_quote.

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 states when to use the tool (to match a customer need) and what to do if no results (ask for clarification). It also references a related tool (get_quote) for pricing. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives.

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