Get Webhallen product details

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the data returned, including the time-bounded 'lowest price last 30 days' caveat and per-store stock granularity, which tells the agent this is a heavy read. It says nothing about failure modes for a malformed id/URL, whether non-Webhallen URLs are accepted, rate limits, or freshness/caching.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then lists the returned content. No filler, hedging, or repetition, and each clause maps to a distinct payload category the caller would care about.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of previewing the response shape (description, grouped specs, identifiers, images, pricing, per-store stock), which is the main thing an agent needs. The gap is behavioral: error handling and identifier-format tolerance for a required, free-form string parameter remain undocumented.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents idOrUrl with an example id and the URL alternative. The description's 'by id or URL' merely restates that, adding no format, validation, or normalization detail (e.g. whether query strings or locale prefixes in a URL are tolerated). Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Names a specific resource ('Full details for one product') and both accepted identifiers (id or URL), and enumerates the payload (description, specs, part numbers/EAN, images, pricing, stock). It is clearly a single-item detail fetch, distinct from search_products/list_category. It stops short of naming siblings like compare_products or check_price_availability, so the boundary with those overlapping tools needs inference.

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 is implied: call this once you already have a product id or URL. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no guidance on when to prefer check_price_availability or compare_products, and no note that this is not a search endpoint. Adequate but reliant on the agent inferring the workflow.

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