Product details

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful data semantics: allergens rendered in capitals, possible traces, and that ingredients are null for raw products (fruit, fresh meat). That nullability caveat prevents a misread of the response, though error/not-found behavior is left unstated.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the return content, with the null caveat last as a qualifier. No filler.

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 shape needn't be explained, and the description still adds semantics the schema can't convey. Slightly short on edge cases — what happens if the product isn't carried by the store or if the page fails to parse.

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 both parameters documented and one enum ('superu'), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says (store and product_id sourcing).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Reads a product page') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: ingredient list, allergen statement, origin. This distinguishes it from list/search siblings by making it clearly a single-product detail fetch, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 — an agent infers it is the detail follow-up after search_products (the schema, not the description, points at search_products for product_id). The description offers no when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or prerequisites.

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