chewy_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by specifying the full normalized response contents and the id provenance/default-variant nuance. It stops short of a 5 because it does not mention error/not-found behavior, pagination of reviews, or whether any network/rate-limit concerns exist.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The purpose and return fields are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining exactly how to obtain the id. Every clause adds operational 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: what is returned, what the id means, and where the id comes from. It is not quite a 5 because it omits behavior for invalid or missing products, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in the normal case.

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?

The input schema only says 'Numeric id from a chewy.com PDP URL,' but the description adds a concrete example (185468), the full URL pattern, and a cross-reference to chewy_category's products[].part_number. This meaningfully increases the chance an agent extracts or forwards the right id.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Chewy product's detail' and then enumerates exactly what normalized data is returned (name, brand, images, price, stock, ratings breakdown, Q&A, reviews). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like chewy_category or chewy_products, which serve different collection or search purposes.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a single product's full detail and you have a numeric id from a chewy.com PDP URL. It also explains how to source that id from a chewy_category response's products[].part_number. It does not explicitly name tools to avoid or conditions under which a sibling would be better, so it falls just short of a 5.

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