product_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one real behavioral signal: `full` switches to the 'raw response (ingredients, nutrients, origin, ...)', implying the default is a trimmed view. It says nothing about authentication, invalid-uid behavior, or whether store_type affects pricing/availability, which matters for a tool with a channel parameter.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact per-parameter list; no filler. The Args-block formatting is a docstring artifact but costs little space and stays scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are covered. What is missing for a product-lookup tool in this dense sibling set is disambiguation guidance and any note on failure modes for an unknown uid, leaving it adequate but not complete.

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, and it does document all three parameters: product_id with a concrete example value, full with what it returns, and store_type with its two allowed values. The `full` explanation is slightly hand-wavy ('raw response') and store_type's effect on results is left unexplained, keeping it below a 5.

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 first line states a specific resource and retrieval mode: 'Product detail by uid', and ties the identifier to the sibling workflow ('the `uid` in search results'), which separates it from search_products, product_cards, and category_products. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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 parenthetical tells the agent to obtain the uid from search results first, which sketches a workflow but never says when to pick this over product_cards, category_products, or scan_barcode. There are no exclusions or preconditions stated.

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