costco_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the data is 'Public data sourced from Costco's own product backend' and lists the return fields, which gives some transparency about the nature of the operation. However, it does not mention error behavior, potential latency, or whether the stock status is real-time, leaving some gaps for a simple read tool.

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 short, consisting of two sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately lists the return fields. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'Costco product's detail', but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately informs the agent of the return contents by listing the fields. The data source is also mentioned. It does not explain how to obtain the product id, but the schema's parameter description covers that, so the description is complete enough for its complexity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the id parameter with a description mentioning it comes from search results or product URLs. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a Costco product's detail.' It enumerates the specific fields returned (title, description, manufacturer, image, price, stock status, and rating), making it obvious this is for basic product information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like costco_product_reviews and costco_product_availability, which cover other aspects.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as costco_search or costco_product_availability. It neither names alternatives nor describes scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only context is the data source statement, which is not usage guidance.

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