pandamart_store_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 mentions the internal resolution of the store page slug, which is useful context, and notes that per-unit pricing and nutrition are included for specific item types. However, it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (implicitly yes), error behavior, or any rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get one pandamart product's full detail') and immediately provides relevant details about return fields and parameter requirements. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean and efficient.

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-product detail tool with a simple 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the action and key return differences. However, it omits usage guidance relative to siblings, error conditions, and explicit confirmation of read-only behavior. It's adequate for calling the tool but not fully complete for an agent deciding when to use it.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds that only the darkstore code and product ID are needed due to internal slug resolution, which clarifies why market is optional and emphasizes the minimal required inputs. This adds marginal value beyond the schema but doesn't compensate for any gaps since none exist.

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 action: 'Get one pandamart product's full detail.' It specifies the resource (a single product by ID) and adds detail about the fields returned (same as shelf/search plus category_id and per-unit pricing/nutrition for weighable items). This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like pandamart_store_products, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. A specific verb and resource make the purpose clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer this over pandamart_store_products or pandamart_search, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions beyond the internal slug resolution. It only describes what the tool does, not the decision context.

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