get_recommended_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds a specific behavioral detail: retrying once without filters on 404/500 responses and marking the result. This is genuinely extra context, but it is ambiguous what 'marked' means and whether it affects the response. Overall, it contributes some transparency beyond 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 a single sentence and front-loaded with the main purpose, which is good. However, the semicolon-separated retry clause is dense and awkwardly phrased, mixing error-handling detail with the primary purpose. It is reasonably concise but not optimally 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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description leaves significant gaps: no explanation of what the response contains, how parameters influence recommendations, or how this tool relates to similar ones. The retry behavior is niche but does not fill the emptiness. The description feels incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 schema has 4 parameters (limit, product_number, search_options, exclude_marketplace) with 0% documentation coverage in the schema itself. The description does not explain any of these parameters, nor does it map 'explicit filters' to specific schema fields. There is no compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource ('Get DigiKey recommendations'), but the resource is vague: it does not specify what kind of recommendations or what input is used (e.g., product number). It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'recommend_components' or 'get_substitutions'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The retry-behavior clause implies a context where filters may be rejected, but it does not explain typical use cases, prerequisites, or when a different recommendation tool would be more appropriate.

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