get_frequent_purchases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the result is paginated, describes the returned product details, facets, pagination metadata, and optional inclusion of unavailable products, and flags the authentication prerequisite. It does not describe failure behavior if the session is missing or expired, but the disclosed behavior is otherwise solid.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, then expands into return contents and auth requirement. Every sentence adds useful information without filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the response: paginated list, product fields, facets, pagination metadata, and the unavailable-products flag. It is complete enough for a simple read-only paginated fetch, though it leaves out details about authentication failure or what happens when the session is invalid.

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 both page and displayUnavailable, including page size and available/unavailable filtering. The description's mention of 'Optionally includes unavailable products' mirrors the schema rather than adding new semantic meaning, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 identifies a specific action ('Retrieves') and resource ('authenticated user's frequently purchased products on Carrefour France'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_orders, get_personalized_recommendations, and get_product_recommendations by focusing on frequent-purchase history rather than order history or recommendations.

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 sets clear context: use this tool to fetch the authenticated user's frequently bought items, and it explicitly notes that an authenticated Carrefour session is required. It does not name alternative tools for when this tool should not be used, but its use case is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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