get_product

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond that by exposing conditional behavior: 'club price only when shown on the site', 'partner points (summary)', 'star split next to the variant-group rating', and 'markdown condition for used items'. These nuances are valuable and non-obvious.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, then expands into a dense list of card sections. It is long but every clause communicates a distinct element, and there is no filler. It could be more scannable with bullet points, but it remains efficient.

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 tool with a large output surface, the description enumerates nearly every section of the product card, including conditional pricing, variants, delivery, stores, and badges. The required parameter and city scope are covered by the schema, and an output schema exists. The only minor gap is explicit handling of not-found or invalid IDs.

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 100%, with city, product, include_specs, and include_stores already clearly documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying the fetch is 'for a city', so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 opening sentence 'Full live card of one product for a city' names a specific verb-resource pair with clear scope: one product, one city. The detailed field list further specifies exactly what the tool returns, making it easy to distinguish from sibling search tools like search_products.

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 usage for comprehensive single-product lookup, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over siblings such as get_reviews or get_questions. The phrase 'one product' and the exhaustive card contents give clear context, but there is no direct alternative guidance.

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