willys_get_frequent_products

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 fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, any required authentication, rate limits, or potential costs. The only extra context (not CMS data) is about data source, not behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that provides the core purpose without wordiness. Every phrase earns its place by clarifying the data source.

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 and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like, how to handle pagination (if any), or any operational caveats. The tool has 3 parameters, but only one is documented in the schema.

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 schema description coverage is only 33% (only scanOrders has a description). The tool description adds no parameter details, leaving limit and sessionId unexplained. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 returns the most frequently purchased goods ('Vanligast köpta varor') and specifies the data source (actual order history vs. CMS page). This makes the purpose unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like willys_get_orders.

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 implies usage context by contrasting order history with the CMS page, suggesting this tool is preferred when real purchase data is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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