get_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it notes the number of HTTP requests ('One request (three with include_seller_legal)') and warns that one of those calls hits '/api/' disallowed by robots.txt, which is critical for rate-limit and compliance awareness. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 moderately long but well-structured: a lead sentence captures the core purpose, followed by a compact list of additional features. It is front-loaded with the essential 'one seller's product card' and avoids redundancy. The style is efficient, though the bullet-like formatting (line breaks) is not perfectly concise but remains clear.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all major aspects of the product card (prices, promo, delivery, seller, rating, badges, flags, stock, characteristics, question count) and mentions the optional include flags. It also notes the interaction with get_offers. This is comprehensive enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope without guessing.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description enriches include_seller_legal by explaining the extra request cost and robots.txt issue, giving the agent a reason to set it to true/false. It does not repeat the other parameter descriptions, relying on schema clarity, which is acceptable. The added nuance justifies a 4.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'One seller's product card' and enumerates its contents (labelled prices, promo conditions, delivery, seller). It also highlights unique aspects like the seller rating and the 'Все N предложений от X' aggregation check. This is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_offers or get_seller.

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 references get_offers for listing offers, which is a hint about separation of concerns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use get_seller for legal entity details' or 'use get_reviews for reviews'). The usage context is implied but not fully articulated, leaving an agent to infer the boundaries.

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