amazon_get_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the pincode parameter triggers delivery-location setup via Amazon Glow and refreshes ETA, which is valuable behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, any potential side effects, rate limits, or permission requirements. Since it implies a fetch (read) but doesn't confirm side-effect-free behavior, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return contents; the second explains the optional parameter and its effect. It is tightly structured and every clause adds value, earning a perfect score.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return structure, but it already lists the key data (price, specs, delivery, variants, reviews). It also covers the optional pincode behavior. For a fetch tool with a defined output schema, this is complete. It could mention error cases or unsupported inputs, but that is not essential for correct invocation. A score of 4 reflects its adequacy without overreach.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters itself, which it does well. It clarifies asin_or_url (ASIN or /dp/ URL) and pincode (6-digit Indian PIN, sets delivery location, refreshes ETA). It even gives an example ASIN. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the exact format of the /dp/ URL or any validation rules, but it's sufficient for an agent to construct valid inputs.

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 opens with a clear verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('one Amazon.in product'), then enumerates the exact data returned (live price, specs, delivery, variants, reviews). It distinguishes itself from siblings like amazon_search by specifying that it fetches a single product given an ASIN or /dp/ URL, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states that it accepts an ASIN or a /dp/ URL 'from amazon_search', implying it is meant to be used after searching. This gives context on when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_product or compare_products, nor when not to use this tool. Still, the reference to amazon_search provides a clear workflow hint, so it earns a 4.

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