recommend_magnet_for_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses tier-gated output depth and that warnings are always free, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what tier/auth is needed to call it, or whether it changes any system state.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact tier breakdown and upgrade link. The tracking URL is extraneous to invocation, but the description remains short and 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?

It explains the tiered recommendation depth, which is useful because no output schema exists. However, for a 15-parameter tool it never explains how key inputs like commercial, compliance, or child_accessible affect the answer, leaving some gaps despite good schema coverage.

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 87%, so the schema already documents most parameters and a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning for use_case, load_mode, max_temp_c, or the other 12 inputs.

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: 'Recommend a magnet strategy for a printed product,' and notes tier-gated depth. It does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby magnet tools like check_magnet_design or generate_magnet_qc_plan, but the recommendation intent is clear.

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 tier breakdown gives context about output depth, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives among the many magnet-related siblings. An agent must infer that this is the pre-design recommender rather than validation, QC, or supplier-vetting tools.

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