dappier_ai_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output as a 'formatted summary including article titles, summaries, images, source URLs, publication dates, and relevance scores,' which is helpful. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects, which would be expected for a tool with no annotations.

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 starts with a clear purpose and organizes data models with bullet points, but it is somewhat verbose by repeating model information that is also in the schema. It is front-loaded but could be more concise, as every sentence earns its place but some repetition exists.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the output format and each data model's domain, covering the core functionality. It could be more complete by briefly explaining how ref, num_articles_ref, search_algorithm, and similarity_top_k affect results, but the schema handles those sufficiently.

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 value by naming and explaining data model IDs (e.g., 'Sports News: Real-time news...'), but these details are already present in the schema's description for data_model_id. Other parameters like ref, query, and search_algorithm are not elaborated beyond the schema, so the description provides minimal additional meaning.

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 'Fetch AI-powered recommendations from Dappier by processing the provided query with a selected data model,' which identifies the verb (fetch recommendations) and resource (Dappier data models). It distinguishes the tool from the sibling dappier_real_time_search by emphasizing recommendations with tailored content, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 by listing data models and their domains (e.g., Sports News, Lifestyle News), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling or provide conditions for use. It lacks exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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