wish_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it enumerates the returned fields, discloses per-variation detail, and explicitly states that an unrecognized id returns 404. It does not cover rate limiting, caching, or auth, but those are minor considerations for a single-product read tool.

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?

Three sentences economically cover return values, id provenance, and error behavior; information is front-loaded. The slight repetition of 'full detail' in the first two sentences is the only minor waste.

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 lookup, the definition is almost complete: it says exactly what the id is, where to get it, what the return includes, and what happens with an invalid id. Since there is no output schema, the field list is the main completeness element, and it is present.

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% and already specifies the id as a 24-character hex string. The description adds meaning by naming both valid id sources — a search result's product_id and a product page's URL — which helps an agent understand how to obtain the parameter in practice.

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 states a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Get a Wish product's full detail.' It then names the returned content (name, price, sold-out state, rating, images, variations), which separates it from search/reviews/related sibling 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?

It provides clear usage context: the id comes from a search result's product_id field or a product page's URL, so this is the detail lookup step after searching. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this for reviews or related products, but the workflow intent is clear.

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