get_firework_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Получить' implies a read-only retrieval and the field list clarifies what the agent will receive, but the description does not disclose response shape, video representation, authentication needs, or error behavior. It is not misleading, but it adds only basic behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the most relevant output fields without any filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter detail-fetch tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the expected output fields and the schema fully covers the input. It lacks a bit of usage context and return-shape detail since there is no output schema, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to make a basic correct call.

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 input schema already fully documents product_id, including that it is an integer ID in the pyro.ua catalog, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by confirming the product is a firework and tying it to the returned characteristics, but it provides no additional parameter constraints or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Получить' / get) and a concrete resource ('полные характеристики салюта'), and it enumerates the returned characteristics: caliber, work video, time, safe distance, and instructions. It is unambiguous and easy for an agent to distinguish from sibling tools like create_order or track_order, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_fireworks.

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 that this tool should be used when complete firework details are needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of calling it after search_fireworks, and no exclusions versus alternatives like check_stock_availability. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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