get_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that price is the total including shipping, that url is a Tweakers clickout link, and the nuanced behavior that refurbished/open-box/outlet offers are excluded but still counted in refurbished_hidden. It does not mention pagination, error behavior when product_id is unknown, or auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the price/url semantics, then the refurbished caveat. Roughly three purposeful sentences with no filler, though the mixed explanation of output fields and input flags makes the middle slightly dense.

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 values need not be explained, yet the description usefully clarifies the non-obvious semantics of price and url. Combined with the refurbished behavior, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the offer_limit input remains unexplained.

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 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate. It fully explains include_refurbished and clarifies the meaning of output fields (price, url), but product_id and offer_limit are never described, leaving half the inputs dependent on inference from their names.

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 implied (get) and resource (product) and enumerates the returned fields: brand, name, mpn, gtin, price range, plus cheapest shop offers. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly says it looks up a single product by id or how it differs from siblings like get_specs or get_cheapest_offers.

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?

Provides explicit conditional guidance for include_refurbished: only set it when the user explicitly asks for refurbished/outlet items, and states the default behavior (refurbished left out) otherwise. No guidance on when to choose this over the sibling tools, which would be needed for a 5.

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