run_flipkart_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the full field set that comes back, which is real behavioral value. However it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behavior for a missing/invalid id.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the cost note. The long field enumeration is informative but slightly heavy; nothing is wasted, though it could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description's field list does useful work in telling the agent what comes back. For a single-parameter retrieval tool this is close to complete, with only auth/error behavior left unstated.

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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents the accepted value. The phrase 'by item id or product URL' mirrors the schema's own description and adds no extra syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (full Flipkart product details) and enumerates the returned fields (title, brand, price, MRP, discount, images, etc.), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like run_flipkart_product_search or run_flipkart_product_reviews, so it falls short of 5.

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?

It says the input must be an item id or product URL but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting it over run_flipkart_product_search or run_flipkart_product_reviews, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the accepted input format.

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