research_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool 'researches' and lists outputs, but does not explicitly mention whether it is read-only, any external calls, or potential side effects. Since it's called 'research', it's likely non-destructive, but this is not stated.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that lists all relevant aspects without fluff or repetition. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The description provides a good overview of the tool's outputs, including the opportunity score and the listed data points. While it does not detail the exact output format or caveats like data freshness, the absence of an explicit output schema makes this sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the tool description is the sole source. It mentions 'Amazon India' implying the marketplace default, and 'product idea' implies the product_name. However, it does not explicitly explain the parameters, their formats, or whether marketplace can be changed to other regions.

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 clearly states a specific verb (Research) and resource (Amazon India product idea), and enumerates the aspects covered (category, price, BSR, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a holistic research tool rather than a focused analysis (e.g., analyze_product_demand).

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 a comprehensive product research but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over individual analysis tools. It could benefit from a note like 'Use this when you need an overall opportunity assessment' to guide selection among many siblings.

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