product_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it defines the three price meanings, explains available, and reveals the critical variant SKU behavior—that the variant SKU is what goes into the cart and for apparel is the only addable one. This is substantive context beyond what the schema or tool name conveys.

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 front-loaded with the one-line product card summary, then organized into pricing, availability, cheaper offers, variant behavior, and optional-flag guidance. Every sentence adds operational value; the length is justified by dense, necessary semantics rather than filler.

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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the runtime facts an agent needs: price interpretation, variant SKU handling, optional fetches, and sibling alternatives. Auth and rate limits are not needed for this get-details tool's core contract.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: variants carry their own sku and 'that sku is what goes into the cart', and with_description/with_reviews are separate requests with standalone alternatives. This goes beyond the schema's brief parameter descriptions, particularly for sku_or_url.

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 opens with a precise product-card scope: title, three prices, variants, characteristics, gallery photos. It names sibling tools like get_description(), get_reviews(), and find_cheaper() so an agent can distinguish this tool from related ones without opening their schemas.

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 routes the agent to alternatives: get_description() and get_reviews() do the same fetches standalone, and find_cheaper() lists cheaper offers, implying when not to bundle those requests. It does not explicitly contrast product_details with search, but the scope of a full product card is clear.

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