pdd_product_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions unlimited usage and independence from search limits, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not discuss authentication prerequisites, but for a simple read-only fetch this is a reasonable gap.

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 short sentences: the first states the purpose and returned fields, the second highlights the unlimited usage. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema provided. The description adequately covers what the tool does, the fields returned, and an important usage constraint. No additional context is needed for successful invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains that url_or_id can be a goods_id or a full goods2.html URL. The main description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '获取' (fetch) with a clear resource '拼多多商品详情' (Pinduoduo product details) and enumerates the specific fields (名称、价格、原价、销量、规格). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like pdd_search and other product detail tools.

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 statement '商品详情独立于搜索限制 — 不限次数' gives clear context that this tool is not bound by search quotas, implying it is useful when search limits are a concern. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a full 5.

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