ohpolly_product_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful implementation context: results are normalized, the route handle is resolved to a Shopify product id before fetching, and the storefront URL is fixed server-side. It stops short of describing error behavior or explicit read-only status, but the disclosed mechanics are decision-relevant.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the remaining sentences add only behavior that changes how an agent should think about invoking the tool.

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 read-oriented recommendations endpoint with no output schema or annotations, the description covers input, scope, normalization, and server-side resolution behavior. It does not spell out the shape of the returned products or failure handling, which is a minor gap, but an agent can make a correct call with the information provided.

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 value by clarifying that 'handle' is a route-style slug resolved internally to a Shopify product id, which explains the required parameter's format. Limit and intent are already fully described in the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'Oh Polly product recommendations,' scoped to a single product handle. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ohpolly_product or ohpolly_collection_products by stating it returns recommendations rather than product details or collection listings.

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 phrasing 'for one Oh Polly product handle' and 'product recommendations' makes it clear when to use this tool versus product detail or collection tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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