Lamoda Product Card

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it reveals the call is anonymous and tier 1, defines clear failure modes via ToolError variants, and documents that Lamoda has no ratings. There is no contradiction with the 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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by two clearly headed sections for return and error formats. Every section earns its place with diagnostic value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, input expectations, output shape, endpoint characteristics, and failure modes. The output schema exists for detailed return fields, and annotations cover safety, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The single parameter sku_or_url is fully documented in the schema, including the accepted SKU format and a lamoda.ru URL example, so the description does not need to add much. It adds only the indirect hint that an input without an extractable SKU will fail with BadRequestError.

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 action ('Fetch') and a concrete resource ('one Lamoda product card'), and the singular 'product card' phrasing clearly separates it from lamoda_search and lamoda_selfcheck. The mention of the anonymous GraphQL endpoint and tier 1 also makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 the caller needs a SKU or product URL, and the note that Lamoda exposes no ratings suggests one exclusion, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over lamoda_search or lamoda_selfcheck. Usage guidance is left mostly to inference rather than stated.

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