Store recommendations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool is read-only ('without changing the basket') and mentions authentication, but does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, error responses, or handling of missing store IDs. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and key behaviors immediately, and every sentence provides essential information without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose, return values (product IDs, prices, availability), and safety guarantee (no basket change). It lacks output schema details but remains mostly complete for a read-only list tool. A small gap is the absence of pagination or limit behavior beyond the 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (kind and limit have descriptions, but store_id and store_address_id do not). The description adds value by listing example kinds ('Easy Reorder and Top Sellers') but does not explain the required parameters store_id and store_address_id beyond what the schema indicates. The description fails to compensate for the missing 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 clearly states it reads authenticated product carousels like Easy Reorder and Top Sellers, returning live identifiers, prices, and availability. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_store_menu' and 'browse_stores' by specifying the resource (carousels) and operation (read without changing basket).

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 retrieving product recommendations but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks. No guidance is provided for selecting between this and siblings like 'browse_stores' or 'get_store_menu'.

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