stevemadden_product_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'normalized' output, handle-to-Shopify-id resolution, and a fixed server-side storefront URL. Yet it does not clarify what 'normalized' means, the response structure, or failure modes, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, output type, resolution behavior, and a fixed URL constraint. Front-loaded and free of 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 simple 3-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation needs: purpose, required handle, and normalization behavior. The ambiguity of 'normalized' and the lack of response-shape details keep it from a 5.

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 a minor detail about handle resolution to a Shopify product id, but does not substantively enhance understanding of limit or intent beyond their schema descriptions.

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: 'List Steve Madden product recommendations' for 'one Steve Madden product handle'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like stevemadden_product (product details) and stevemadden_products (product listing) by focusing on recommendations for a single handle.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need recommended products for a specific Steve Madden product handle. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, so an agent must infer the right context from the name and phrasing.

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