tokopedia_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly frames the operation as returning 'public' detail, implying a read-only access path, and adds a meaningful constraint: numeric product IDs that appear on the page cannot be used as lookup inputs. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, though rate limits, errors, and explicit authentication posture are not discussed.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose, followed by input constraints. There is slight redundancy between 'Get a public detail' and 'returns public product detail,' but the two sentences together clarify the canonical source and do not introduce significant bloat.

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 two-parameter public fetch, the description is mostly functional: it names the input identifiers, prohibits URLs, and states that output is public product detail. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unspecified what fields the detail contains, any error/auth behavior, and how to obtain the canonical product key when the agent does not already have 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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that arbitrary URLs are invalid and that numeric product IDs returned by the product page must not be used as lookup input—important disambiguation for product_key and shop_domain.

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 begins with 'Get a Tokopedia product's public detail,' naming the specific resource and verb. It then clarifies the canonical input identifiers (shop domain and product key) and explicitly rules out arbitrary URLs, making the tool's purpose distinct from nearby Tokopedia search/filter endpoints.

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?

It implies usage when canonical Tokopedia shop domain and product key are available and when arbitrary URLs are not the input format. However, it never mentions siblings like tokopedia_search, tokopedia_autocomplete, or tokopedia_product_review_filters, so an agent is not explicitly routed to the correct alternative when those prerequisites are absent.

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