AliExpress Product Card

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical operational context: it renders in the operator's Chrome, may face x5sec challenges (causing TransportDownError), and lists specific error types (BadRequestError, ParserDriftError). This goes well beyond annotations and helps agents anticipate failure modes.

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 well-structured with clear sections for return and error formats. It balances necessary caveats (review text limitation) and technical details without being excessively verbose. Each sentence contributes to operational clarity.

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 tool that interacts with an external site and may encounter challenges, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, limitations, error handling, and return structure. The output schema exists, so not explaining return fields in detail is acceptable; the description adds extra value beyond structured data.

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% with a detailed description of the item_id_or_url parameter including format and example. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but given the high coverage, this is sufficient.

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 'Fetch one AliExpress product card', specifying the verb, resource, and platform, which distinguishes it from sibling card tools for other marketplaces. It also explicitly mentions that review texts are not exposed, clarifying the scope beyond a generic product fetch.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining that review texts are deliberately not returned due to x5sec challenges, implying this tool is for basic product info rather than reviews. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context is clear enough to differentiate from review-focused siblings like wb_reviews or ozon_reviews.

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