jcrew_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description must self-disclose behavior. It describes the return payload comprehensively and explains input constraints (pid format, site matching, single-call coverage). While it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication, or error scenarios, for a simple read-only product fetch this is adequate disclosure. It adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the single-call behavior and the pid-source relationship.

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 three sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the purpose and return data, then explains input semantics, and ends with a clarifying note about single-call coverage. Every sentence contributes to correct usage, making it efficient 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It enumerates the return fields, explains how to obtain and supply pid, specifies the site parameter's role, and preempts unnecessary multi-call behavior. There is no missing critical information for successful invocation.

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. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it provides an example pid format ('e.g. CX415'), clarifies the origin of pid (from jcrew-search), and emphasizes that site must match the pid's storefront, including the default value. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions, aiding proper invocation.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (J.Crew/J.Crew Factory product), then enumerates the exact returned data fields (name, brand, description, category, list price, aggregate rating, colors, SKUs). It also distinguishes itself from jcrew_search by specifying that it returns full product detail for one style, and preempts confusion with per-color lookups by stating 'A single call covers every color and size.' This is clearly differentiated from sibling 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: it requires a pid obtained from jcrew-search's products[].id field. It also provides usage constraints: site must match the storefront the pid belongs to, and it clarifies that no per-color lookup is needed. This effectively guides when to use it vs. alternatives like jcrew_search or per-color tools, satisfying the when/when-not criteria.

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