get_product_detail

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read-only 'query' operation and indicates the returned content (specs, seller-specific prices), but it does not mention error behavior, missing products, or external source implications. This is minimum viable transparency.

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?

A single Korean sentence that front-loads the operation and parenthetically scopes the returned information. No filler, no repetition of parameter or schema details.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names the product identifier and source, and indicates the result content. However, with no output schema and several price-focused siblings, it fails to clarify what the price data represents or how this tool differs from price-history/comparison tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it loosely connects 'seller-specific prices' to the source parameter, but doesn't explain how productCode and source shape the response beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves) with a clear resource: detailed information about a specific product, including specs and seller-specific prices. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_parts and get_price_history, which serve different purposes.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or point to siblings like compare_prices, find_lowest_price, or get_price_history, leaving the agent to infer the right choice.

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