get_product_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds specificity about the fields returned and the constraint not to speculate missing fields, providing useful context beyond 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with an important behavioral instruction, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the key fields returned. It lacks details on response format or error handling, but for a straightforward product detail query, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for product_id and store_id. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb '查询' (query) and the resource '商品详情' (product details), listing specific fields (price, specifications, ingredients, etc.). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product_catalog or get_recommended_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?

The description implies usage for detailed product information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings or what the alternatives are. The instruction '不得推测缺失字段' provides a negative guideline but no positive usage context.

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