commerce_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a read operation. The description adds that 'Returns quality scores alongside memories', providing additional behavioral context. No contradictions, but value beyond annotations is modest.

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, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and filtering criteria; second sentence describes output and target audience. Every word adds 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 schema covers all parameters and annotations are present, the description adequately explains what the tool does and returns. Minor gap: the format of 'quality scores' and 'memories' is unspecified, but not critical for selection.

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 already describes all 3 parameters with 100% coverage. The description mentions categories but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. 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 (product_recommendation, brand_compliance, sizing, pricing, regulatory). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from the general sibling tool 'recall' and 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?

The description indicates usage is for 'agentic commerce agents' needing commerce-related feedback. It implies the context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'recall', 'feedback_stats', or 'feedback_summary'.

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