wish_product_related

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden—and it does well. It reveals that results are grouped into rails, gives concrete examples of rail types, and discloses the non-obvious edge behavior that a faster-shipping rail with no eligible items or a nonexistent id returns an empty normal result rather than an error.

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 sentences, no filler: the purpose statement is front-loaded, the return shape is clarified immediately, and the edge-case behavior is placed at the end. Every sentence adds information the agent needs.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough to use correctly: it covers the id source, the grouping/return concept, examples of rail types, and the fallback behavior for invalid or empty inputs.

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 both id and count fully, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds extra value beyond the schema by confirming id can be taken from a product page's URL, not only from a search result's product_id field.

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 concrete verb and resource, 'Get a Wish product's related items,' and expands immediately into the specific return shape: related-item rails grouped by category. This clearly distinguishes it from Wish siblings like wish_product, wish_search, and wish_product_reviews.

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 intended usage is clear: use this when you have a Wish product id and want shelves of similar products. The description also explains where id comes from (search result's product_id field or a product page URL). It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use them, 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.