run_zalando_products_related

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 usefully discloses the returned fields and, notably, the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral context. However, it omits rate limits, auth requirements, and pagination/termination behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists outputs and the cost. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema it compensates by listing the returned fields and the cost model, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs. It stops short of pagination semantics, but the params and cost note cover most of what is required to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents product, max_items and start_page. The description adds little param-level meaning beyond implying the product URL source, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Get related products from a Zalando product page') and enumerates the recommendation subtypes (similar, same brand, cross-sell, sponsored). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_zalando_products and run_zalando_products_search, which fetch/search primary products rather than 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?

Phrasing ('from a Zalando product page') implies the required input is a product URL and that it should be used for recommendation discovery, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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