hermes_product_recommendations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so substantively: it specifies the shelf semantics, the normalized fields (price, stock, image), and the non-error empty-shelves case. It does not cover invalid-sku behavior or how the optional locale parameter affects the response, but for a read-only recommendations endpoint the key behaviors are disclosed.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, detailed return structure second, and the notable empty-result behavior last. There is no filler, and the length matches the tool's moderate complexity.

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?

Given only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool and interpret its response: input format, return shape, and the empty-shelves edge case. Minor omissions such as invalid-sku handling and locale influence prevent a top score, but nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies: the schema already documents the sku forms and the full locale enum. The description's note that it 'takes the same sku forms as hermes-product' merely restates the schema description, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get a Hermès product's recommended items') and then details the exact return payload: the 'keep exploring' and 'perfect partner' cross-sell shelves. It distinguishes itself from the sibling hermes-product tool by grounding the sku input format in that sibling while making this tool's recommendation-specific scope unmistakable.

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 use case is clear: an agent should select this tool when it needs the cross-sell/recommended items shown on a Hermès product page, and the empty-shelves note explains a likely boundary condition. It does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools or say 'use hermes_product for product details instead,' but the first sentence provides enough contextual signal for correct selection.

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