Product details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by explaining the return shape in the absence of an output schema: variants are separate entries each with their own price and stock, the selected one is marked, and ingredient percentages are normalised per `ingredients_per` (e.g. one softgel). It does not cover edge cases such as an invalid product id or missing fields.

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 the purpose sentence, followed by compact paragraphs on the id/path source, variant semantics, ingredient normalisation, and next steps. Dense but every clause carries information; the backticked field names aid scanning rather than padding.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of sketching the response (price/stock per variant, ingredients with daily-need percent, faq, articles) and points to follow-up tools. Remaining gaps are minor for a read-only lookup: no mention of currency/units, localisation, or behaviour when the id is unknown.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's note that `product` may come from dr_search or dr_cheapest mostly restates the schema. The `full` parameter (long expert review up to 4000 chars) is never mentioned in the description at all, which would have been a useful disambiguation of cost/completeness trade-off.

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 and resource ('Get one product's price per variant, stock, brand, ingredients...') and enumerates the payload so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It also implicitly separates itself from dr_search/dr_cheapest by describing a single-product lookup, and the 'Next:' line names the sibling tools that continue the flow.

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?

States where the `product` argument comes from ('an id or path from dr_search / dr_cheapest') and routes follow-up work explicitly to dr_reviews, dr_related and dr_compare, plus dr_article for article text. There is no explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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