tab_recommendation_featured

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses a key behavior: 404 when category is not featured. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or other safety traits. The return structure is outlined, adding some transparency.

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 efficient: two sentences, return structure, and an example. It front-loads the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains clear and without fluff.

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 the tool’s simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete but missing critical details: what jurisdiction does, how to handle 404s operationally, and whether pagination exists. It covers the return type but leaves parameter specifics vague.

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 0%, so the description should fill the gap. It only mentions 'one recommendation category' without explaining the category parameter values, format, or the optional jurisdiction parameter. The example uses a category but provides no semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states that the tool returns featured items for a single recommendation category like Jockey Challenge, with a concrete example. This verb+resource description distinguishes it from sibling tools like tab_competition or tab_match, which serve different purposes.

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 (when you need featured items for a category) but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or exclude cases. It provides an example but lacks guidance on when not to use the tool (e.g., for non-featured categories).

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