get_product

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral quirk (PDD's numeric goods_id is discontinued, only goods_sign works), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior for a cross-platform fetch.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact per-platform mapping, then a structured Args block. Every sentence carries information; the parenthetical about goods_sign is long but earns its place by preventing a deprecated-id mistake.

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 lookup tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly. It omits only edge behavior (unknown id, platform/id mismatch, errors), a minor gap.

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 0% and the schema even lacks an enum for platform, yet the description fully compensates: it enumerates taobao/jd/pdd and maps item_id to num_iid, skuId, and goods_sign respectively, including where the goods_sign token comes from. This prevents the most likely invocation error.

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 a specific verb and resource ('按商品 id 查详情' – fetch product details by product id), which clearly separates it from the search_products sibling. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the follow-up to search_products when it already has an id, but no when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative appears. The per-platform id routing hints at how to invoke, not when to choose this tool.

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