get_visually_similar

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. 'Get visually similar products' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose details like whether this is a search or recommendation system, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format might be. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get visually similar products' is front-loaded and to the point. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity of 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's domain (e.g., e-commerce, fashion), how results are returned, or key behavioral aspects. For a tool with rich parameters but minimal description, this leaves significant gaps in understanding for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'product_id' relates to visual similarity or how parameters interact. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Get visually similar products' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('visually similar products'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_complete_the_look' or 'get_style_guide'. It doesn't specify whether this is for fashion, retail, or another domain, leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous despite having a clear basic action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_complete_the_look' or 'get_style_guide'. The description lacks context about scenarios (e.g., for product recommendations, visual search) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone without explicit direction.

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