suggest_affiliate_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 notes that revenue estimates are algorithmic benchmarks (not live pricing), equipment ranks highest in commission, and the output is sorted by affiliate score with price ranges. It does not cover potential rate limits or caching behavior, but the provided details are substantial.

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 concise—four sentences—with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides ranking priority, usage guidelines, input constraints, and an example. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the output format (sorted items with price range and commission) and notes on data accuracy. Missing details like pagination or error handling, but provided information is sufficient for typical use cases.

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 100% with adequate parameter descriptions. The description adds context by stating the tool accepts ingredient list or recipe_id from extract_recipe_ingredients and provides an example ('recipe_name='Beef Bourguignon''). This adds meaningful usage guidance beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb-object pair: 'Generate a revenue-ranked affiliate shopping list for a recipe.' It clearly states the resource (shopping list) and the action (generate, sorted by commission). It also distinguishes from sibling tool match_ingredients_to_products by explaining that tool is for ingredient-level SKUs.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('ranked shopping lists and blog monetization strategy') and when to use the sibling tool ('ingredient-level product SKUs and substitutions'). It also specifies that it accepts an ingredient list or recipe_id from extract_recipe_ingredients, providing clear input guidance.

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