Commerce Recall

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds that the tool returns quality scores alongside memories, providing valuable behavioral context without contradiction. No destructive actions are mentioned, consistent with read-only intent.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and filters, then adding output details. No redundant information, every sentence contributes value.

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, schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and returns. It distinguishes from siblings and provides all necessary context for an agent to use it 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond listing commerce categories, which are already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and returns quality scores with memories. It distinguishes itself from a generic recall tool by specifying commerce categories and the output format.

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 commerce-related feedback retrieval but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives like the generic 'recall' sibling or other feedback tools. The commerce categories provide context but lack explicit guidance on exclusions.

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