everlane_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that output is normalized, which is useful. However, it does not clarify the output structure, whether results are read-only, or any potential errors/limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose: what the tool gets, what it returns, and a server-side constraint. Minor grammatical awkwardness ('Get a Everlane') and slight repetition do not undermine efficiency.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, it provides the essential operational facts: one handle, Everlane, normalized detail, fixed server-side URL. It omits what a page handle looks like and what fields 'static page detail' includes, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding if this tool satisfies a request.

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% since the only parameter 'handle' is described as 'Page handle.' The description similarly mentions a 'page handle' but adds little detail about the expected format, source of handles, or example values. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource: an Everlane static page identified by a single handle. It says it returns 'normalized static page detail,' which distinguishes it from product/collection tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like everlane_pages.

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?

Usage is implied: the caller must supply a single Everlane page handle, and the storefront URL is fixed server-side. There is no explicit statement about when to choose this over everlane_pages or everlane_product, and no exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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