Detsky Mir Product Card

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

The annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond those: region overrides DETMIR_REGION for this call only, store_count varies dramatically by city with concrete examples, and errors are raised as ToolError with retryability info. This goes well beyond the structured 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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement, a context paragraph, a highlighted 'Region matters most here' section with concrete examples, and a separate error-format section. Every sentence adds useful information, and the formatting makes the most important caveat immediately visible.

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?

With only two parameters, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description covers everything else an agent needs: error behavior, region-override semantics, why store_count is city-dependent, and what makes this source different from general marketplace cards. There is no significant missing context.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful depth: it explains that region is the most impactful parameter, how it interacts with the environment default, and why store_count depends on it. The product_id semantics are already well covered by the schema's URL-pattern hint, so the description's extra region guidance earns a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch price, rating, stock and seller for one Detsky Mir product.' It clearly scopes the tool to a single Detsky Mir product and distinguishes it from sibling marketplace cards by naming the retailer and the category coverage. Even without reading the schema, an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is valuable: 'Covers the kids-and-baby category that the general marketplaces cover unevenly' and distinguishes Detsky Mir's own stock from third-party sellers. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the market-specific positioning and the 'for one product' scope make the appropriate use case reasonably clear.

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