chewy_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses what the response contains: normalized product fields, star-count breakdown, category breadcrumbs, Q&A, reviews, shipping dimensions, purchase limit, and promotion types. It does not cover failure modes or data freshness, but the read-only fetch behavior is clear.

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 long but every clause adds value: a clear opening statement, a detailed payload enumeration, and an id-sourcing note. It is not broken into sections, but it is front-loaded and has no 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input source and the full response surface well enough for correct invocation. It could be more complete by noting any limits (e.g., review/Q&A pagination) or exact return format, but nothing critical is missing.

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 schema only says 'numeric id from a chewy.com PDP URL,' and the description adds a concrete example URL and the important relationship to chewy_category's products[].part_number. This is meaningful added semantic context that helps an agent construct the call correctly.

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 specific verb-resource pair ('Get a Chewy product's detail') and enumerates the exact payload fields. It distinguishes this tool from sibling product/review tools by noting it returns the full normalized detail including Q&A, reviews, shipping, promotions, and purchase limit.

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?

It gives concrete guidance for obtaining the id: from a chewy.com PDP URL or from a chewy_category response's products[].part_number. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for sub-scopes like reviews-only or variants, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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