product_detail

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces non-mutation ('No cart/order mutation') and lists the data being read, but it does not add behavioral context like authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff: the read scope is front-loaded, and the non-mutation disclaimer follows. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere rather than being a structural flaw.

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 a nested request object, three parameters, and no output schema, the description is significantly incomplete. It enumerates some returned content but fails to explain how to construct the request, what product_code and offer_id represent, or how the CheckoutInput fields affect the result, leaving an agent unable to call the tool correctly without guessing.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain any of the three parameters: 'request' (a nested CheckoutInput with required account, store_code, pickup_at, max_amount_cny), 'product_code', or 'offer_id'. The description mentions output concepts but gives no guidance on what values to supply.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and concrete resources ('combo rounds, component choices, extra prices, supported standard configurations'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It also states 'No cart/order mutation,' which separates it from cart/order-mutating siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from other read tools like menu_list or checkout_quote.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to read product configuration data without mutating a cart or order. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to siblings such as menu_list or checkout_quote, and no prerequisites or workflows are described.

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