ikea_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the item_no format (8 digits, optional 's' prefix meaning a combination/set article), where to obtain the identifier, and exactly what the return payload contains. However, it does not disclose failure behavior for an invalid or missing item, the effect or defaults of the optional country/language parameters, or explicitly confirm the read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: the first delivers the action and the return payload, the second defines the one critical parameter. The purpose is front-loaded and every clause 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-required-param lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, return contents (compensating for the missing output schema), and the key parameter's format and source. The remaining gaps are the role/defaults of the optional country and language parameters and explicit differentiation from overlapping IKEA siblings like ikea_availability.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema's country/language descriptions ('Lowercase 2-letter IKEA site country/language code') already stand on their own. The description adds substantial value beyond the schema for the required item_no: the 8-digit format, the 's' prefix semantics for combination/set articles, and the provenance of the value (search result field or product page URL).

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 ('Get') and a clearly scoped resource ('an IKEA product's detail'), explicitly limited to a single item, and enumerates the returned content: name, price, rating, every product image, quick facts, and category breadcrumb path. This distinguishes it from overlapping siblings like ikea_search (lists), ikea_availability (stock), and ikea_reviews (feedback).

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 conveys clear invocation context: this is a downstream lookup that consumes an item_no sourced from a search result's item_no field or an ikea.com product URL, used when the agent needs full normalized detail of one item. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly names exclusion cases or alternative sibling tools (e.g., use ikea_availability when only stock is needed).

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