get_similar_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return' without explicitly stating that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication, pagination, error behavior, or side-effect safety. The read-only nature is implied but not made transparent.

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 states the operation, resource, and input with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the core calling scenario is covered: given a pid or url, return similar products. The main gap is the lack of behavioral details (e.g., auth or side effects), but the low complexity and output schema mitigate the incompleteness.

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 sole parameter is pid_or_url, and the description says 'pid or url', which adds minimal context by indicating the parameter identifies the product whose similar items are returned. However, this largely mirrors the schema title and provides no additional format, validation, or disambiguation details, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the exact resource ('Flipkart's similar / you-may-also-like products'), and specifies the input ('a pid or url'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_product or search_products, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when similar or you-may-also-like products are needed for a Flipkart product ID or URL. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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