homedepot_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the inconsistent unknown-id behavior and the possibility of an upstream error rather than a not-found response. It also lists included data, though it does not address rate limits, auth, or error response format.

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?

Three sentences, each functional: purpose, contents, and error behavior. No redundancy, and the most constraining detail (id extraction) is placed right after the purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics, return contents, and edge-case error behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it appropriately.

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%, but the description adds meaningful interpretive context: id is the trailing number of a /p/{slug}/{id} URL. This tells the agent how to extract the id from a product page, going beyond the schema's example value.

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 ('Returns') with a precise resource ('one Home Depot product's full detail') and enumerates the exact content fields (name, description, brand, model, SKU, GTIN, price, images, rating, reviews). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like homedepot_search and homedepot_product_questions.

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?

Clear context is established: use this when you need a single product's complete detail, including reviews and ratings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specificity of 'full detail' implicitly differentiates it from search and Q&A tools.

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