colehaan_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the result is 'normalized' and the storefront URL is 'fixed server-side,' telling the agent the output is standardized and the target domain is not client-controlled. It does not disclose behavior for an invalid handle (error vs empty result), the composition of the returned detail, or any auth/rate-limit requirements, so disclosure remains partial.

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?

Roughly 30 words across three short sentences with the action front-loaded ('Get a Cole Haan static page'). Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return type, and the fixed-URL caveat. There is no filler, which is appropriate for a single-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one required parameter, no enums, no nested objects), and the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, from which site, and keyed by what. However, with no output schema and no annotations, 'normalized static page detail' is the only description of the return value, and the description neither explains where to obtain valid handles (e.g., via colehaan_pages) nor what happens for an unknown handle. These gaps are material given nothing else documents the response.

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 modest value by clarifying that the handle is the page selector while the URL is fixed server-side, reinforcing that handle is the only needed input. It provides no format, example, or source for valid handles, so it stays at the baseline.

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 ('Get') and a clearly bounded resource ('a Cole Haan static page'), and the phrase 'for one ... page handle' fixes the singular scope, separating it from the plural colehaan_pages listing tool. The word 'static' also distinguishes it from the product, collection, and store siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, which keeps it a 4 rather than 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is only implied: 'static page' suggests CMS/informational pages rather than products or collections, and 'the storefront URL is fixed server-side' implies the agent does not need to construct a URL. The description never says to prefer this over colehaan_pages or colehaan_product for any specific scenario.

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