Product details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by explaining the shipping-related fields (free_shipping_over threshold vs. free_shipping qualifying on this product's price alone), which is real behavioral context an agent needs to interpret the result. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, and the field list overlaps somewhat with the return surface, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loads the tool's output in the first sentence, then usage routing, then the shipping nuance. Three dense sentences with no filler, though the closing shipping sentence is packed tightly and slightly crowded against the rest.

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 single-item read with no output schema, the description covers the returned content, the follow-up routing, and the shipping-eligibility semantics well enough to call correctly. Minor gaps remain around pagination/truncation outside the full_text flag, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both product_id (format, example) and full_text (truncation behavior) documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get one product') and enumerates exactly what is returned: price in Toman, discount, stock, options, attributes, rating and shop. This is plainly distinguishable from the sibling search, vendor, and review tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('after bs_search or bs_find_cheapest to check the details before recommending') and routes the agent elsewhere by intent: bs_reviews for opinions, bs_vendor for shop reliability. Alternatives and conditions are named, not inferred.

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