jcrew_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return scope (one style), enumerates the returned data, and explicitly promises that a single call covers every color and size with no per-color lookup needed. It does not discuss errors, authentication, or rate limits, but for a simple product retrieval tool this is a strong disclosure.

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?

All sentences earn their place: purpose, return fields, pid semantics, site requirement, and the no-per-color-lookup guarantee. The description is front-loaded with the most important facts and contains no filler or redundant explanation.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: return fields are enumerated, both parameters are fully explained, and the dependency on jcrew-search is documented. The only notable gap is that valid site values are not explicitly listed beyond the default, though the matching rule largely mitigates this.

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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: pid is a style id with an example (CX415) and an exact source path (jcrew-search's products[].id), while site gains a default value and a matching constraint. This exceeds the baseline expected from schema-only coverage.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a J.Crew or J.Crew Factory product') and enumerates exact return fields: name, brand, description, category, list price, aggregate rating, colors, and SKUs. It also ties pid to jcrew-search's products[].id field, which distinguishes this product-detail tool from related siblings like jcrew_product_reviews. The one-style scope is explicit.

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: pid must come from jcrew-search's products[].id field, site must match the storefront the pid belongs to, and site defaults to jcrew. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives like jcrew_product_reviews, so it stops short of a 5.

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