Get Jumbo Product Recommendations

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a 'get' tool, so the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adds the read-only mode breakdown but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or freshness of promotional data, so it adds only marginal context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering all three modes with no filler. It is slightly cramped by the trailing promotional clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero required parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the default behavior when no argument is supplied (does it return nothing, or a general recommendation set?) and give some sense of the returned data. That ambiguity is left unresolved.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema supplies richer per-parameter detail (including examples like '293407STK' and 'havermelk') than the description does. The description merely restates the modes, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get product recommendations, alternatives, and cross-sell suggestions') and enumerates the three operating modes. It is clearly distinct from siblings like jumbo_search_products, but it never names that sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by mapping each mode to a parameter (SKU vs. query vs. promotions_only), with no explicit statement of when to pick this over jumbo_search_products or jumbo_get_promo_digest. A reader can infer intent but gets no exclusions or routing guidance.

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