get_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that with genuinely useful behavioral disclosures: seller is always null and store_stock is unavailable, and that bonus points and the 'Долями' payments are explicitly not discounts. It does not cover latency or payload size, but the semantic caveats are the valuable part here.

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 one-line purpose, then a dense but information-bearing enumeration of the card contents. Every clause carries distinct field semantics; the parenthetical asides are compact rather than padded, though the paragraph runs long without structural breaks.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, yet it does describe them anyway and flags the fields that are systematically null or unavailable. For an open-world, four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, nothing essential 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 100%, so every parameter is already documented (city source and default, id-or-URL for product, the two include_* flags). The description restates the variant-selection behavior of the product id but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 line states a specific resource and scope: a full product card for one item id, resolved live for a city. An agent can immediately tell this apart from search_products (bulk discovery) and compare_products (multi-item), and the enumerated return contents reinforce exactly what the tool produces.

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 only implied: 'for one item id' plus the note that a size/shade id selects a variant hints at when to reach for this tool rather than search_products. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative to route the agent.

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