goat_product_recommended

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is descriptive metadata only, has no live pricing, and is credential-free public data from a specific API. This gives the agent important expectations about data freshness and access. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple recommendation lookup the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then adds the key qualifiers (descriptive metadata, no live pricing, credential-free, source API). Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, what it doesn't return (no live pricing), and the data source. It doesn't describe the return structure, but with no output schema and a straightforward recommendation list, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention whether the response includes product names, images, or links, but the core usage is clear.

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 schema already documents both parameters (slug and count) with their types and defaults. The description adds context that slug is a GOAT product URL slug and count controls the number of recommendations, but this largely mirrors the schema. The description's mention of 'recommended products' and 'other colorways' gives some semantic color beyond the schema, but not substantially.

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 clearly states the tool gets GOAT recommended products for a product, specifies the source (GOAT's own product-page recommendation API), and clarifies the output is descriptive metadata only with no live pricing. It distinguishes itself from related GOAT tools like goat_product and goat_search by focusing on recommendations/related products.

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 explains what the tool returns (recommended/related products like other colorways and similar products) and notes it's credential-free public data. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context of 'recommended products' and the sibling list make the use case clear. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with goat_product or goat_search.

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