review_product_record

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond that: 'Missing or conflicting facts remain on hold' and the negative scope ('Does not fetch URLs, verify GTIN assignment...') disclose limits an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences with no redundancy; the core purpose leads, and the negative-scope sentence packs useful constraints into a compact closing list. Nothing feels wasted.

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 tool with a nested record object, an evidence parameter, no output schema, and no sibling guidance, the description covers the processing constraints and safety profile but omits what a review returns, what evidence is for, and when to prefer this tool over compare_* siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, but it only hints at method via 'Optional mapping transforms only explicit supplied fields' and never explains the 'evidence' parameter, the 'record' shape, or the copy/mapped enum values. Significant parameter meaning is left undocumented.

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?

'Review one supplied product record' gives a specific verb and resource, and the constraints (canonical-field subset, positive USD prices) sharpen the scope. It is distinguishable from the sibling compare tools, though the single-record focus is implied rather than explicitly 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?

The description states what the tool does not do (fetch URLs, verify GTIN, validate uploads) but never tells an agent when to use review_product_record versus compare_dimensions or compare_feed_snapshots. No alternative selection logic is provided.

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