get_product_details

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It implies read-only but doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid ASIN), or data freshness. The description is minimal for a critical catalog lookup.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence. Front-loaded with 'Read catalog metadata' and immediately specifies the resource (ASIN) and examples. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Without an output schema, the description partially covers return fields. It lists seven examples but omits structure (e.g., nested objects, types). Adequate for a simple lookup but lacks precision for complex parsing.

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?

Input schema covers the single parameter 'asin' with basic description. The tool description adds value by listing the metadata fields returned (title, brand, dimensions, etc.), which helps the agent understand output without an output schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read catalog metadata for an ASIN' with specific verb and resource. Lists example fields (title, brand, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_orders or get_keyword_performance.

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?

No guidance on when to use versus alternatives. With 20+ sibling tools, the description should indicate contexts for this tool (e.g., retrieving product details) versus others like get_listing_quality or get_current_rank.

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