moncler_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the size guide is conditionally present ('when the upstream provides one'), that product_id can be variant-level or master-level, and lists the full set of returned fields. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple get operation these are less critical.

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 reasonably long but necessary to enumerate the extensive list of returned fields. It front-loads the purpose and then elaborates on id usage, with no wasted sentences. The structure is clear and effective.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (name, price, stock, variations, images, size guide, etc.) and the id acceptance criteria. It lacks details on edge cases like non-existent products but is complete enough for typical usage.

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 covers the parameter with a brief description 'Product or master id', but the description adds crucial semantics: it explains that the id can be variant-level or master/style-level and clarifies it comes from search/category result ids. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent choose valid ids.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Moncler product's detail', clearly stating its function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like moncler_search and moncler_category by emphasizing it returns one product's full detail, including many specific fields, making its purpose 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 description implies usage after search/category by stating product_id comes from moncler-search/moncler-category result ids. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use it when a product ID is already obtained.

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