get_personalized_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It specifies that the tool 'retrieves' (read-only implied), requires authentication, and details the return structure (wording block with image, text, title, color; and product list). It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but for a retrieval tool this is adequate. No contradictions with annotations (none present).

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the main action and output details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates on return content. No unnecessary repetition or verbose phrasing; it could be split into two sentences for readability, but it remains concise 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (wording block and product list) and the basis (CDP profile). It covers the essential context for an agent to understand the tool's function and expectations. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but these are not critical for such a simple retrieval tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds context about the prerequisite (authenticated session) but does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist.

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's purpose: 'Retrieves personalized product recommendations for the authenticated user on Carrefour France'. It specifies the resource (product recommendations), the user context (authenticated, CDP profile), and the output (wording block and product list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product_recommendations (which may not be personalized) or get_frequent_purchases.

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. It mentions 'requires an authenticated Carrefour session' but does not explain when to choose this over get_product_recommendations, get_checkout_recommendations, or get_frequent_purchases. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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