colehaan_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add some behavioral information: the output is 'normalized product detail' and the storefront URL is fixed server-side. However, it does not disclose what happens for invalid/unknown handles, what fields the normalized detail contains, or any response/error semantics.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the handle clarification placed at the end. The first sentence overlaps slightly with the second, but the description is compact and free of filler.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the output type ('normalized product detail') and defines the input precisely. It could be more explicit about the returned structure or failure modes, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly 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 only says 'Product handle,' but the description adds meaning by explaining that handle is the product's URL slug and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This extra context helps the agent know exactly what value to pass.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Cole Haan product'), then narrows the action further: it returns normalized product detail for exactly one product handle. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like colehaan_products, which handles plural/listing cases, and colehaan_product_recommendations.

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?

It is clear this should be used when a caller has a single product handle/slug and wants product detail, but it never explicitly says when not to use it or names an alternative. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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