stevemadden_product_recommendations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by explaining that the handle is 'resolved to a Shopify product id before fetching recommendations' and that the 'storefront URL is fixed server-side.' However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'normalized' means in terms of output structure. This is moderate transparency, not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds relevant information: scope, normalization, and internal resolution behavior. There is no fluff or repetition. The parenthetical URL is unobtrusive and the technical details are concise.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key non-schema facts: it returns normalized recommendations for a single product handle and explains the server-side resolution. However, it does not describe the return structure, pagination, or error behavior, which an agent might need when no output schema is present. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 all three parameters (handle, limit, intent). The description adds marginal value by clarifying that the handle is a product handle and that it gets resolved to a Shopify product ID, but it does not explain how 'intent' affects results or what 'normalized' means for the output. This aligns with the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'List Steve Madden product recommendations.' It then scopes the operation to 'one Steve Madden product handle,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stevemadden_product or stevemadden_products. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 clearly states the tool operates on 'one Steve Madden product handle,' giving the agent a concrete context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, such as pointing to stevemadden_product for product details or stevemadden_products for listings. This is clear context without exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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