skims_product_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds useful context: output is 'normalized,' the handle resolves to a Shopify product id, and the storefront URL is fixed server-side. However, it does not explain what 'normalized' means, what fields appear in the response, or how limit and intent affect behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds relevant context. There is no filler or repetition; it efficiently conveys purpose, input scope, and internal behavior.

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 states the core behavior and input requirements but leaves return details vague beyond 'normalized recommended products.' An agent can likely invoke it correctly, but it would benefit from a sentence about the response shape or the meaning of normalization.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it reinforces that 'handle' is a product handle and mentions internal Shopify id resolution, but limit and intent are already well described in the schema. No significant extra parameter meaning is provided.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List SKIMS product recommendations.' It further clarifies the scope with 'for one SKIMS product handle,' which distinguishes it from tools like skims_products or skims_product. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when you need recommendations for a single SKIMS product handle. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the single-handle scope is enough to guide selection among the many sibling product tools.

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