prada_product

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that description and the full image gallery are best-effort and may be briefly absent for a valid pv, while every other field is always populated – which prevents misinterpretation of sparse responses. It also states the not-found error semantics for unknown pvs, and the trailing-path-segment note gives an additional way to recognize a valid pv.

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 four purposeful sentences: purpose, return fields, pv provenance/URL alias, then best-effort and error caveats. Nothing is fluff, and the most important scoping information appears first.

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 one-parameter fetch without annotations or an output schema, the description is complete: it lists the output fields, explains the identifier's provenance and alternate form, flags which fields can be incomplete, and defines the error case. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the response.

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% for the single pv parameter, but the description adds meaningful value beyond the schema: pv is not only an identifier from search/category results but also the trailing path segment of a Prada product URL, and it names the exact result fields where pv appears (products[].pv/other_colors[]). This helps an agent locate and validate the value in outputs from sibling tools.

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 the specific action 'Get a Prada product' and describes the normalized product-detail data returned for one Prada product/color variant, naming the exact fields (name, price, stock, available sizes, breadcrumb, alternate colors, images). The mention of pv as the identifier returned by sibling prada-search and prada-category endpoints distinguishes it from those search/category tools.

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?

Explains that pv is returned by prada-search's and prada-category's results as well as this endpoint's own products[].pv/other_colors[] fields, which tells the agent how to obtain a valid identifier and when this tool applies (once a pv is known). It also specifies that an unknown pv yields a not-found error, setting expectations for invalid invocation. This effectively routes the agent between sibling tools even though it doesn't say 'use this instead of X' explicitly.

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