get_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: the card is 'live', the displayed rating is often the variant line's while the SKU's own rating is computed from its own reviews, and the price-history hint is Ozon's only one. This is meaningful extra transparency.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest is a dense enumeration with no wasted sentences. The long run-on style could be improved with bullets, but every clause earns its place.

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 complex tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the major output domains and the single-SKU scope well. It does not discuss error cases or data-freshness caveats, but those are not required for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description maps output sections to the optional flags (variants, other sellers, characteristics/description/package contents), but it does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Full, live product card for one SKU.' It then enumerates the card's contents (prices, availability, seller, rating, variants, other sellers, characteristics), which clearly distinguishes it from search_products, get_reviews, and compare_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 'for one SKU' phrasing implies this is the tool to use when a single product's full card is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It does not explain when to prefer get_reviews or compare_products instead.

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