quince_product_faq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does meaningful work by revealing an edge behavior: 'a product with none returns a well-formed empty result' rather than erroring, which is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs to anticipate. It also discloses data provenance ('from the same structured product data quince-product-reviews uses'). It does not describe the return structure, but for a 1-parameter read tool this is a solid behavioral 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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, content type + provenance, handle semantics, and edge behavior. It is front-loaded with the clearest statement first. There is minor redundancy between 'FAQ content' and 'question/answer content' across sentences one and two, but no wasted sentences overall.

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 simple 1-required-param read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers what is returned, where the data comes from, how to source the handle, and the empty-result case. The absence of an output schema makes a return-shape note potentially useful, but the description discloses the most important behavioral fact (well-formed empty result) and content examples, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke this confidently.

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% — the handle parameter already has a clear description ('Product URL handle, from a search result's products[].handle field'). The description adds value beyond the schema by stating the handle is 'the same value quince-product accepts,' giving the agent confidence to reuse handles obtained from quince_product. This exceeds the baseline-3 expectation for high schema 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Quince product's FAQ content.' It further clarifies the content type ('question/answer content (e.g. sizing, care, fit)'), which distinguishes it from the sibling quince_product_reviews, and anchors it to the same data source as that sibling and the same handle as quince_product. An agent can immediately tell this is the FAQ retrieval tool in the quince cluster.

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 provides clear routing context: it mentions sharing structured data with quince-product-reviews and accepting the same handle as quince-product, which implicitly separates FAQ retrieval from review retrieval and product detail retrieval. It also warns that 'Not every product carries FAQ content,' signaling when a call may yield nothing. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements or named alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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