get_product

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing concrete behavioral details: delivery cost is only available at checkout, store stock separates city stores from the region, and ratings distinguish line-level rating from variant rating computed from its own reviews. It also notes promotion card rules and that every variant is returned with its own price and stock.

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 one-sentence overview 'Full live card of one article' is front-loaded, and the following detailed sentence is dense but relevant. It could be more scannable if split into bullets, but no clause is wasted.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: exact data categories, a stock-location nuance, a delivery-cost caveat, and a rating computation distinction. No critical operational detail appears 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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain city, article, include_stores, include_variants, and include_description clearly. The description adds useful output context but does not materially improve an agent's understanding of how to populate the parameters 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 opening phrase 'Full live card of one article' clearly states the resource (one article) and the result (a complete live card). It doesn't explicitly contrast overlapping siblings like get_reviews or get_store_availability, but the one-article scope is enough to separate it from search_products and list_stores.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool when you need a detailed live card for a specific article, including price, stock, delivery, ratings, and characteristics. It doesn't list exclusions or directly recommend alternative tools, but the intended use case is explicit enough to guide selection.

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