get_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses what is and is not captured ('Review bodies and pincode-accurate delivery ETAs are not in this capture'), warns to 'Quote the numeric selling_price from this payload,' and indicates liveness. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't mention failure modes or rate limits.

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 tight, front-loaded sections: what it does, accepted arguments, and exact return content with exclusions. Every sentence adds value and the structure makes it skimmable for an agent.

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 the tool's 2-parameter complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is more than complete: it goes beyond the schema to list exact return fields, call out exclusions, and provide a quoting instruction. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully explains both parameters: pid_or_url accepts a product URL or pid with an example, and listing_id is optional and selects a specific seller listing (LST...). This compensates completely for the bare schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one Flipkart product with live price, specs, offers, and reviews.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_products (one product vs. search results) and amazon_get_product (Flipkart vs. Amazon). The outcome is unmistakable.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need one product's details, accepting a URL from search results or a pid. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, such as 'use search_products to find products' or 'use amazon_get_product for Amazon products.' Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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