product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly states this is a fetch (read) operation, implying non-destructive behavior. It also discloses a notable trait: 'Product results issue fresh handles for quote,' which is useful for downstream tool chaining. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements, so it is not a 5.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence about fresh handles is a bit cryptic but still relevant and short. No redundant information, and the format is clean. It could be improved by separating parameters, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, which covers return values. However, the description omits explanations for 'redetect' and 'description_chars', and uses domain-specific terms like 'refs' and 'r<run>.<s>.<i>[.<v>]' that are not defined. It is adequate for a straightforward product detail fetch but leaves gaps for a fully autonomous agent to use all features correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions input types (URLs, refs, handles) which relates to the 'inputs' parameter, but it does not describe 'redetect' or 'description_chars' at all. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's bare titles, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of the other parameters.

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 the tool fetches product details, specifying the exact input types (URLs, refs, or handles) and a batch size range (1–100). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, quote, and images, which have different purposes. The verb 'Fetch detail' is specific and aligns with the tool name.

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 retrieving product details when you have product identifiers (URLs, refs, handles). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (search, quote, images) makes it clear this is for direct product lookups. The 1–100 range also conveys batch usage. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it falls short of a 5.

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