stevemadden_product

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that `handle` is the URL slug—useful context. However, it does not mention output format, whether the product is returned as normalized fields, error behavior if the handle is invalid, or any rate limits/auth requirements.

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—two sentences with no filler. The core action comes first, the product scope and normalization detail second, and the parameter clarification third. 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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and scope. It could mention what 'normalized product detail' actually includes (name, price, images, availability?) or error/not-found behavior, but the simplicity of the tool means the description is largely sufficient.

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% and the only parameter `handle` already has a description ('Product handle'). The description adds the crucial nuance that `handle` is the URL slug and storefront URL is fixed server-side, which is genuinely helpful. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, a baseline 3 is appropriate with a slight bonus for the slug clarification.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Steve Madden product'), and scope ('one product handle'), plus notes the fixed storefront URL and that `handle` is the product's URL slug. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stevemadden_products or stevemadden_collection_products, which are for lists/collections.

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 usage: to retrieve a single product detail, supply the product handle slug. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., stevemadden_products for multiple, stevemadden_search_suggest for search), but the 'one product handle' framing gives clear enough context for an agent to choose this tool when a specific handle is already known.

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