gymshark_product_recommendations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the handle is resolved to a Shopify product ID, output is 'normalized', and the storefront URL is fixed server-side. However, it is vague about what 'normalized' means, lacks pagination/error details, and does not clarify behavior for different intent values, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 succinct at three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add relevant context about normalization, handle resolution, and fixed server-side storefront URL. Minor redundancy exists between 'List Gymshark product recommendations' and 'Returns normalized recommended products,' but overall it is tight and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must be reasonably self-sufficient. It covers the input handle, output normalization, and a server-side constraint, but does not explain the structure of the returned recommendations, the semantic difference between 'related' and 'complementary' intents, or any limitations. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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%: handle, limit, and intent each have descriptions. The description adds minor value by clarifying that 'handle' is a route handle resolved to a Shopify product ID internally, which is a useful hint. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List Gymshark product recommendations' and 'Returns normalized recommended products' for a given product handle. This is distinct from sibling tools like gymshark_product (single product details) or gymshark_products (product listings), making its purpose immediately apparent.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a Gymshark product handle and want recommendations. It provides context like 'The route handle is resolved to a Shopify product id before fetching recommendations.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions compared to other Gymshark or recommendations tools.

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