chewy_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses batch semantics (up to 20 in one call), the fields included (price, rating, stock, images), and notably the partial-failure behavior — unrecognized part numbers go to not_found instead of failing the whole call. It doesn't describe the return structure beyond field names, which matters more given the absence of an 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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: core purpose, parameter format with example, input provenance across sibling tools, and error behavior. The core function is front-loaded before the parameter details. Slightly verbose toward the end with the cross-references, but no sentence is wasted given the single parameter is unusual enough to warrant the explanation.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the essential ground: operation, payload format, batch limits, returned fields, and failure semantics. The main gap is the structure of the response itself (shape of products and not_found arrays), which the description hints at but never specifies — a hole that would normally be filled by an output schema that doesn't exist here.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it specifies comma-separated format, the 20-item cap, a concrete example ('52448,767758'), and the exact sibling output fields from which part numbers originate. An agent gets everything needed to construct the parameter correctly from this text.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('batch of Chewy products' lightweight summaries'), and scope ('up to 20', 'in one call'). The batch dimension clearly differentiates it from the sibling chewy_product (single product), and the lightweight-summary framing distinguishes it from richer search/category tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives strong context on when to use it: when lightweight summaries of multiple known products are needed in one call. It also tells the agent exactly where to source valid inputs by cross-referencing chewy_product, chewy_category, and chewy_search output fields. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., full details via chewy_product), leaving that inference implicit.

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