firstdibs_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a safe read operation via 'Returns' and 'public product detail' and discloses the response fields. It does not cover error cases (invalid/expired URL), currency details for pricing, or any rate limits. Adequate for a read-only lookup but not rich.

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 sentences with no waste: the core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence enumerates exactly what the caller gets back. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter lookup tool; a 5 would require also earning its place with sibling-routing guidance.

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 simple one-parameter product-detail tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential loop: input (a URL) and output (product detail, pricing, availability, brand, category, description, images). Missing disclaimers about invalid URLs and currency, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it successfully is absent.

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% — the schema already describes the only parameter as '1stDibs product URL'. The description's mention of 'a 1stDibs product URL' reinforces the format but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a 1stDibs product') and enumerates the return payload (pricing, availability, brand, category, description, images). The enterprise name '1stDibs' in the tool name and description pairs with firstdibs_search to make the distinction clear. Doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 URL parameter requirement implies the tool is for when the agent already has a product URL, and siblings like firstdibs_search provide discovery when one doesn't. However, the description never states this relationship explicitly or gives a when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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