popular_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the source depends on conversion analytics availability and falls back to catalog seeds. This adds value beyond the schema, though it doesn't describe the exact output structure or any side effects, which are unlikely for a read-only ranking tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the core function. It is concise with no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score.

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?

For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and fallback behavior. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., array of product IDs vs. objects with scores), which is a gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 already fully documents the only parameter 'limit' with its default value (12). The description adds no further explanation about how limit affects results, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 returns 'Hot/popular product ranks' based on conversion analytics with a fallback to catalog seeds. This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_live_products and get_product, which focus on listing or fetching individual products.

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 popularity-based ranking and notes the 'when available' condition and fallback behavior, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context is sufficient.

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