commerce_recall

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns quality scores and memories, providing some behavioral context beyond the annotation, but no further detail on safety or side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence conveys purpose and categories, the second describes output. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, so description partially fills the gap by stating return of quality scores and memories. However, lacks details on pagination, ordering, or error handling. Adequate for a retrieval tool but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description lists the commerce categories, adding value over the schema's generic array description. However, does not elaborate further on 'query' or 'limit' behavior.

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 the tool recalls past feedback filtered by specific commerce categories, which are listed. It distinguishes intent from general sibling 'recall' but does not explicitly differentiate from other feedback tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recall' or 'capture_feedback'. The description implies commerce context but lacks explicit usage conditions.

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