rothys_product_recommendations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context: output is normalized, the handle is resolved server-side to a Shopify product id, and the storefront URL is fixed. But it does not disclose error behavior for invalid handles, pagination semantics, or what 'normalized' means in terms of returned fields, which matters given no annotations exist.

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, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the two following sentences each add a distinct piece of useful implementation context (normalization, handle resolution, fixed storefront URL). Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by describing the return shape more concretely, but 'normalized recommended products' is vague about what fields come back. It adequately covers input semantics and one behavioral constraint, yet leaves output structure and failure scenarios underspecified.

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 genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the 'handle' parameter is a Rothy's storefront handle that gets resolved to a Shopify product id internally — clarifying what value the agent should pass, which the schema's bare 'Product handle' does not convey.

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+resource pair ('List Rothy's product recommendations') and further specifies scope: recommendations for one Rothy's product handle. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rothys_product (fetch a single product), rothys_products (list catalog), and rothys_collection_products.

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 implies the usage context well: pass one Rothy's product handle to get normalized recommendations for it. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., 'for a single product's details use rothys_product'), and with a sibling list this large, that exclusion is left to inference.

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