Recommend Products

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that invalid/malformed input never raises a protocol error but returns a structured error object, and that retrying after correction is always safe. This adds behavioral clarity not present in the 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 is well-organized: opening purpose sentence, 'FREE' note, example input/output, error behavior, and safety retry. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy. It is concise yet information-dense.

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 has only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, expected output shape, error handling, and idempotency. It fully prepares an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% with descriptions for both 'need' and 'limit'. The description adds meaning by showing a realistic example of the 'need' parameter and illustrating how 'limit' affects output (via the example and clamping note). It also clarifies the 'try_free' field in the response, which is beyond the schema's parameter list.

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 uses a specific verb ('recommend') and resource ('catalog products') for a need described in plain language, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_catalog or list_kits. It also includes a concrete input/output example that reinforces the tool's purpose.

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 for plain-language needs and provides a typical input, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or list exclusions (e.g., 'don't use for exact matches, use search_catalog'). Still, the context is clear and supported by the example.

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