burberry_related

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that shop_the_look is optional, often absent, and returned as a well-formed empty list rather than an error, which is valuable non-obvious behavior. It does not describe full response formatting or invalid-input error behavior, but for a simple one-parameter lookup the disclosure is solid.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides dense, useful details. Every sentence earns its place: the return surfaces, the empty-list caveat, the input format, and the provenance example all add necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned, names both surfaces, documents the main edge case (missing shop_the_look), and tells the agent exactly where to get the url value. No critical invocation detail is missing.

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 already documents the url parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example path and specifying that the value should be sourced from the url field of specific sibling tools, which materially helps an agent construct a valid request.

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: it gets related Burberry products for a given product URL. It goes beyond the tool name by naming the two returned surfaces (similar_products and shop_the_look), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like burberry_product, burberry_search, and burberry_category.

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 makes clear when this tool is appropriate: given a product page URL, you can retrieve that product's cross-sell surfaces. It also gives strong input context by stating the url must come from the url field of burberry-search, burberry-category, or burberry-product. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is otherwise clear.

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