allbirds_product_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add meaningful behavior: returns normalized products, resolves the handle to a Shopify product ID server-side, and uses a fixed storefront URL. These details go beyond a simple 'list recommendations' statement and help the agent understand internal resolution and why there is no storefront parameter. It stops short of disclosing error behavior or output 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?

Three sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second defines the object and output, and the third clarifies internal behavior. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns (normalized recommended products), what input it needs (a handle), and how that handle is processed. It does not describe the returned recommendation fields, but for a simple recommendations tool with well-documented parameters, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the handle parameter by clarifying that it is a route handle resolved to a Shopify product ID before fetching, which is not in the schema. Limit and intent are already well described in the schema, so no additional burden on the description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Allbirds product recommendations.' It further clarifies that it operates on a single product handle, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like allbirds_product (single product details) and allbirds_products (list all products). The mention of normalized recommended products makes the purpose concrete.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs product recommendations for a single Allbirds product handle. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, such as pointing to allbirds_product for product details. The usage context is clear but no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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