hermes_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does substantial work: it reveals the data source (Hermès' own product sitemap), the scope behavior (full catalogue per market, including items hidden from category listings), and the important product_id-vs-sku distinction. It does not cover rate limits or response envelope details, but the disclosure of origin and coverage is well beyond minimal for a read-only list operation.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and return shape are front-loaded, followed by data provenance, the changed_since use case, and the critical product_id gotcha. Every sentence earns its place and no information is redundant with the schema.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: return fields, per-market scoping, pagination parameters (via schema), and the changed_since filter. It lacks minor details like default pagination behavior and the response envelope format, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can call it correctly from this definition.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real interpretive value beyond the schema: it frames changed_since as a new-arrivals feed and ties the locale parameter to 'one market'. The product_id note clarifies the semantics of returned data rather than input parameters, but the added conceptual framing still justifies a score above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the Hermès catalogue index') and precisely describes the return fields (URL, slug, URL identifier, modified date). The description differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly referencing hermes-category and hermes-search and by stressing full-catalogue coverage versus category listings. An agent can clearly tell this apart from the related hermes_* tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context: the changed_since parameter is positioned as a new-arrivals feed, and the 'including items no category listing surfaces' remark implies this tool is for exhaustive catalogue enumeration rather than category browsing. It names sibling tools (hermes-category, hermes-search) in the ID-semantics discussion, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' statement with alternatives.

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