hm_listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (H&M app-backend), the nature of the response (normalized products with pricing, colors, stock), and the crucial edge case that requesting beyond the last page yields an empty array rather than an error. It does not mention auth/read-only semantics, but the browse/return language makes safety non-problematic.

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 dense and well-organized, covering the action, return shape, tag, parameter semantics, and a pagination edge case in four sentences. There is slight redundancy between the first and second sentences ('Browse' and 'Returns one category listing page'), but it is not padded and stays informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back, which it does (normalized products with pricing, images, colors, per-size stock). It also covers parameter sourcing and out-of-range page behavior. It does not enumerate sort options or output fields, but those are likely enough for a simple listing browsing tool and the schema covers most missing details.

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 a baseline of 3 is justified, but the description adds meaningful extra semantics for category_id (concrete slug examples and no look-up endpoint mention) and for page (real pagination, overflow behavior). These extras help an agent invoke the tool more correctly than the schema alone would.

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 an explicit verb and resource: 'Browse an H&M category's product listing.' It also defines the return content (normalized products with pricing, images, colors, per-size stock) and clarifies that it is a category-listing page, distinguishing it from product, category, or search tools. The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Gives actionable context: category_id comes from known H&M storefront paths and there is no discovery endpoint, so the agent knows it must already have a slug. Also explains pagination semantics, which helps the agent interpret oversized page requests. It does not explicitly name alternatives like hm_search or hm_categories, but the context is clear enough for call selection.

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