Get Related

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

With no annotations the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value: the read-only reassurance ('Nothing is added to a basket'), the warning that also_bought is not curated and may include other sizes of the same article, and the role of the same_category marker. It says nothing about authentication, market defaulting, result limits, or whether results are cached — gaps that matter for a 5-param tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized by kind label — easy to scan and no filler sentences. Slightly diluted by references to output-side fields (same_category, selling_points), which drift from the tool's own parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description spends words on output markers instead of the undocumented limit/market parameters. For a read tool with no annotations, the behavioral and parameter picture is helpful but incomplete.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains kind's two values well and clarifies the only_other_categories=True interaction, but sku, limit, and market are left entirely undocumented (market's null default is never explained). Partial compensation, not full.

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?

States a concrete resource — accessories and alternatives for a product, mirroring the product page — and enumerates the two result kinds (also_bought vs similar) with what each contains. An agent can tell it apart from write-oriented siblings (add_to_basket, set_quantity) thanks to the 'Nothing is added to a basket' line, though it never explicitly contrasts with search_products or compare_articles.

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 clear context for choosing between kind="also_bought" (real purchase data: screws, foam, fittings) and kind="similar" (same kind of article, other sizes/brands), and explains when only_other_categories=True is relevant. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool route, so it stays just below a 5.

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