recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the auth requirement for history-type tapes and the product_id dependency for combo_tape. However, it does not state what happens when product_id is missing for combo, how unauthorized sessions are handled, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 front-loads the main resource and then efficiently lists all variants and their constraints. There is no redundant filler, and every clause adds actionable 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?

Given the tool's modest complexity and the presence of an output schema, the main gaps are around edge-case behavior: what happens with missing product_id, unauthenticated sessions, and whether the tool has side effects. The description covers the happy paths for all five blocks but leaves error/fallback behavior implicit.

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. It partially does by mapping the enum values to human-readable tape descriptions and by explaining product_id's role for combo_tape. Yet it never mentions the parameter name 'block' explicitly and does not explain behavior when product_id is provided for non-combo blocks or omitted for combo_tape.

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 identifies the resource as product feeds/ribbons and enumerates five concrete variants (popular, recommendations, combo, previously bought, viewed). It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches', but the intent is clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like promotions or search_products by focusing on recommendation tape types.

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 gives meaningful selection criteria: combo_tape requires a product_id, and already_bought_tape and viewed_products_tape require an authorized session. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the conditions for picking the right block are clearly stated.

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