samsclub_product_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that the upstream source returns generic fallback shelves for unrecognized ids rather than errors, and it states the output shape (normalized products with pricing, rating, image). This is highly useful for managing agent expectations beyond what a schema shows.

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 concise, well-structured, and information-dense. Each sentence contributes: what the tool returns, output content, input format, and upstream behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with a clearly documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the input source, the response structure, and the non-error fallback behavior. A minor omission is explicit guidance on what to do when a product truly does not exist or whether id should be treated as string vs number, though the schema covers type.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the id parameter clearly. The description adds value by reinforcing the /ip/ URL context and noting that unrecognized ids still return fallback shelves. It does not add new syntax or formatting details, so a 3 is appropriate per the baseline.

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 and resource: 'Get a Sam's Club product's related items.' It clearly describes the output as related-item carousels from the product page, naming example shelves and the normalized product fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like samsclub_product, samsclub_category, and samsclub_content.

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 tells the agent when the tool is appropriate: when you need the related-item carousels from a Sam's Club product page. It also explains the required input format (numeric product id from /ip/ URL). It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the purpose and input constraints imply the right usage context.

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