Recommend Products

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent hints, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it never raises a protocol error and instead returns an error object with remediation guidance. It also reveals the ranking-by-fit behavior and the output shape, giving an agent accurate expectations for a call.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concrete example, usage guidance, and error behavior. It is slightly redundant by repeating read-only and idempotent facts already stated in annotations, but each sentence otherwise earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, a full output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers everything needed to select and call it correctly: purpose, typical input/output, when to use an alternative, error handling, and safety of retry. Nothing important is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the clamp behavior for limit and an example for need. The description reinforces those semantics with a typical input/output example but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Recommend'), resource ('catalog products'), and the input mode ('need described in plain language'). It also distinguishes itself from search_catalog by explicitly noting it is not for exact keyword or slug lookups, so an agent can tell siblings apart.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('when the caller describes a problem instead of naming a product'), how ranking works (by fit to the described need), and names the alternative for exact lookups (search_catalog). This leaves no ambiguity about selection versus siblings.

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