get_homepage_returning_banner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and describes the output structure (list of recommendations with fields). It does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, but the verb 'Retrieves' implies a safe read. This is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only relevant details (output structure, optional limit, authentication requirement). No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a key prerequisite (authentication). It does not mention error conditions or limitations, but these are not critical for this straightforward read operation.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' has 100% schema description coverage, and the description adds 'Optionally limits the number of recommendations returned,' reinforcing optionality. The schema already defines it as a maximum number, so the description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score 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 states the tool retrieves the 'returning user banner' for the Carrefour France homepage, which is a specific resource. It differentiates from sibling tools by noting it targets returning users and returns personalized recommendations with fields like product ID, name, image URL, and optional highlight label. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it is for the homepage banner for returning users and requires an authenticated Carrefour session. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context is sufficient to infer appropriate usage.

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