lazada_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that price is best-effort and sourced from display-tracking data, and that rating/review count are missing due to client-side fetching. It explains the data provenance and limitations clearly, which goes beyond basic behavior disclosure. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but those are not critical for a read-only endpoint.

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 slightly longer but every sentence contributes: purpose, return fields, ID provenance, and data limitations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields, then explains ID relationships and caveats. No filler words or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns, how to get the IDs, and notable data quality limitations. It doesn't enumerate every possible output field but lists the major ones. It also addresses the price and rating gaps, which are crucial for an agent to set expectations. Slightly more detail on output structure could help, but overall it's complete for a product-detail endpoint.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that item_id and sku_id are the same identifiers returned by other endpoints, clarifying their provenance and that sku_id is for a specific variant. This helps the agent understand how to obtain and use these parameters, adding value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('a Lazada country storefront's product-detail page'), and lists the returned fields (title, brand, description, image gallery, breadcrumb, variant properties). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that the item_id is the same as those returned by search, category-products, and home endpoints, which implies this is the detail retrieval for those search results.

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 implies usage: obtain item_id from search/category/home endpoints, then call this for full details. It also provides exclusions by noting rating and review count are unavailable, which steers agents away if those are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need product details' or contrast with a specific alternative tool beyond the ID relationship.

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