Get products

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description earns credit for behavior the annotations do not cover: the 20-id cap and the meaning of not_found (products temporarily hidden by HKTVmall and later relisted), which prevents an agent from treating a miss as a permanent deletion.

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 return fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the not_found caveat as a short parenthetical follow-up. Dense and waste-free; only the comma-list of fields is slightly unpacked prose.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage and a single 100%-documented parameter, the only real gap the description needed to close was the not_found edge case, which it does. What remains unstated — whether results are ordered as the ids were supplied — is minor for this tool.

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 minItems/maxItems already encoded, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description's 'up to 20 product ids' merely restates maxItems; it adds no format, encoding, or ordering semantics beyond the 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?

The description enumerates exactly what is returned (price, stock, seller, delivery, summary, origin, photo, page) for a bounded set of product ids, which is far more specific than the title 'Get products'. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with hktv_show_products, so the agent must infer the difference from the schema note 'Product ids from hktv_search'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool takes ids sourced from hktv_search, so it is a detail-lookup for already-known products rather than a browse/search entry point. No explicit when-to-use vs hktv_show_products guidance and no stated exclusions.

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