aura_recommend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: the top-3-per-surface cap, commercial-use licensing note, slim row output, and the auto-retry-once-via-suggested_queries-then-editorial-picks fallback chain. It omits only minor traits like read-only confirmation and latency, which are low-stakes for a recommendation read.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the purpose before output details and fallback logic. Density occasionally tips into crypticism ('hits per surface'), but every clause earns its place.

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?

For a tool with five parameters (two enum-constrained), zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient: the parameter vocabulary is almost entirely undefined and the fallback/result semantics are only sketched. An agent could not confidently set theme, negative_theme, or min_views from this text.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only incidentally gestures at 'slim' (slim rows) and 'goal'. It says nothing about theme, negative_theme, or min_views, leaving three of five parameters with a name and type but no meaning.

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 communicates a specific purpose: it recommends a starter kit of top 3 free assets per surface for a goal, with page URLs and rationale, plus a fallback chain. However, it uses jargon ('surface', 'hits', 'starter kit') and never states a verb or distinguishes itself from near-siblings like aura_inspo_recommend or aura_related.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. 'Starter kit for a goal' faintly implies an early-stage discovery context, but with 35 sibling tools the agent gets no help choosing this over aura_inspo_recommend or aura_search_all.

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