colehaan_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by stating the output is normalized and the storefront URL is fixed server-side, explaining why no URL parameter exists. It does not disclose response structure, what counts as a static page, or rate/error behavior.

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 two concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence adds meaningful context about normalization and the fixed URL without waste or 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 list tool with zero required parameters, the description is largely sufficient, but the absence of an output schema means it does not clarify what fields or content a 'normalized static page' contains. It also gives no hint about when to use colehaan_page for single-page access.

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%, with both parameters already well-documented: page is 1-based defaulting to 1, and limit defaults to 50 with a max of 250. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List Cole Haan static pages') and clearly identifies the tool's scope. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like colehaan_products and colehaan_page via 'static pages' and plural vs singular naming, though it does not explicitly contrast with colehaan_page.

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 clear context: it lists Cole Haan static pages and notes that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, so no URL input is needed. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance among the many sibling 'pages' tools.

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