Related products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing that results are grouped into relation categories and carry prices, and that the input is a product reference obtained elsewhere rather than an arbitrary string.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and its output are front-loaded, then usage conditions, then the chained next tool. No filler or repeated annotation 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, the description does the necessary work of saying what comes back (related products in categories, with prices), and the schema covers the limit-per-group ceiling. Empty-result behavior and whether groups can be omitted are left unstated, which is the only remaining gap for a read-only lookup 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both `product` (id or path from dr_search) and `limit` (products per group, 1-12) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the id/path origin, and its phrase 'products per group' hints at grouped results but adds no semantics the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('List products related to one') with an enumeration of the relation kinds returned (alternatives, similar, same-brand, complementary) and the payload ('with prices'). That enumeration distinguishes it from dr_search (query-based lookup), dr_product (single product detail) and dr_compare without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering situations — out of stock, too expensive, or looking for a complement — which is genuine when-to-use guidance, plus a follow-up step ('Next: dr_product on any result'). It does not explicitly exclude a sibling (e.g. when dr_compare would be better than browsing related items), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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