brooklinen_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral detail: the storefront URL is fixed server-side, so the agent knows not to pass a full URL. 'Returns normalized product detail' hints at the response shape, but does not disclose fields, error conditions, or any read/write side effects. It is adequate but not rich for a tool with no output schema.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the key input clarification and a behavioral constraint. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical points: what is fetched, what the handle means, and how the URL is resolved. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly. Minor gaps like exact response fields and error behavior are less critical given the tool's simplicity, but would push it to a 5.

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 schema only describes 'handle' as 'Product handle,' which is vague. The tool description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that the handle is the product's URL slug and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent know exactly what value to supply, so it earns above the baseline 3.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get a Brooklinen product' and specifies that it returns 'normalized product detail for one ... product handle.' This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like brooklinen_products by emphasizing the singular 'one' product. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate among the many similar Brooklinen siblings (e.g., brooklinen_product_recommendations), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the tool fetches a single product by handle, which is enough for a straightforward lookup. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like brooklinen_products or brooklinen_product_recommendations, and provides no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer selection from the singular phrasing.

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