get_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that recommendations are filtered by partner rules including category exclusions and recommendation caps, and implies a dependency on get_member_profile. This adds meaningful context beyond the name, though it doesn't cover failure modes or exact return structure.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and filters, the second gives a clear prerequisite. Both sentences are informative and free of fluff, making it maximally concise and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core behavior (returns recommendations), key filtering details, and a required dependency. It doesn't describe the response format or error conditions, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, it's reasonably complete.

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 input schema already fully describes the memberId parameter (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity. Baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool returns personalized travel recommendations for a member, with the specific verb 'returns' and resource 'travel recommendations'. It also mentions filtering by partner rules, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_member_profile and list_members.

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 explicitly instructs to call get_member_profile first, providing a clear prerequisite and ordering. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, though the clear resource distinction and naming make the usage context strong.

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