Find related products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral nuance about what each kind means (similar, bought together, accessories), but does not disclose output format, pagination, or potential edge cases. It adds some value but is not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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 compact sentence that uses backticks for clarity and organized enumeration. It conveys essential information without any filler, making it optimally concise and well-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?

With no output schema, the description does not specify the return format, but the tool's purpose is simple and intuitive. The description covers the main behavioral distinctions (three relationship kinds) and annotations cover safety. It is fairly complete for a read-only related-products tool, though a note about the output structure would make it fully complete.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description enriches the `kind` parameter by explaining each enum value in business terms (alternatives to compare against, complements, add-ons), going beyond the schema's 'Which relationship to follow.' This added semantic detail justifies a 4.

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 related products for a given product, and enumerates the three relationship types (`similar`, `bought_together`, `accessories`) with their intents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, get_product, and browse_category, which have different purposes.

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 on when to use each relationship type (alternatives, complements, add-ons), but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over sibling tools or state any exclusions. This gives users practical guidance within the tool but not explicit cross-tool when/not guidance.

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