everlane_product_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'list' statement: results are normalized, the handle is resolved server-side to a Shopify product ID, and the storefront URL is fixed. This helps the agent understand invariants and internal behavior, though it stops short of describing error cases or edge 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by necessary scoping details and two useful behavioral clarifications. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 recommendation-list tool, the description plus fully documented schema is largely sufficient. It explains what the tool returns at a high level, what input is required, and the fixed URL behavior. Missing details like output format or error behavior are not critical given the low complexity, but a small note about output shape would make it more complete.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 3. The description does not add beyond the schema except to emphasize that handle is singular and required. The limit and intent parameters are already adequately described in the schema, so no major value is added here.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource pair: 'List Everlane product recommendations' and then narrows the scope to recommendations for a single product handle. This distinguishes it from whole-catalog or collection-listing tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to set itself apart.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you have one Everlane product handle and want recommended products. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives (e.g., everlane_product, everlane_products, everlane_collection_products) would be more appropriate for other needs.

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