Product details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds one behavioral trait beyond that — that the response enumerates required options which must be resolved before ordering — but says nothing about location dependency (city vs. latitude/longitude), module scoping, or what happens when an item is unavailable in the given city.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading what is returned and following with the operational consequence. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and location-dependent behaviour, the definition should say more: where item_id comes from, whether city/module affect availability or pricing, and roughly what the returned detail set contains. As written it covers the essential purpose but leaves real gaps for a location-scoped, open-world read 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 description coverage is 80%, so the city, module, latitude and longitude parameters are already well documented in the schema and the enum values are self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter guidance and leaves item_id entirely unexplained — notably it doesn't say the id comes from foran_search_products — so this lands at the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Full details of one product') and adds the payload's key content: required options such as size, flavour, and add-ons. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, though 'before adding it to the cart' implicitly separates it from foran_cart_add and foran_search_products.

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?

It gives a clear workflow trigger: call this before adding the item to the cart, which tells the agent this is the pre-add inspection step. It stops short of naming foran_cart_add or stating when not to use it (e.g. for browsing instead use foran_search_products).

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