Product details and specs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description only needs to add operational context — and it does: it discloses that unsold products return null prices and that all prices are in Toman. It stops short of describing any other return-shape behavior, but the added caveats are the ones an agent actually needs.

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?

What the tool returns comes first, then when to use it, then sibling routing — a well front-loaded structure with no filler. The sibling list is dense but each clause names a distinct destination, so every word 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does by naming the returned fields plus the two edge cases (null pricing, Toman currency). For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented with a source (em_search) and an example value. The description's phrase "which exact model the id is" reinforces the id's role but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource ("Get one Emalls product") and enumerates the returned fields: title, category path, lowest/highest shop price, rating, specs. This clearly separates it from list-style siblings like em_search and em_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?

Explicitly states the trigger ("Use it after em_search to read the technical specs or confirm which exact model the id is") and routes four alternatives by name: em_offers for shops/prices, em_price_history for trends, em_compare for multiple models, em_similar for alternatives. Nothing is left to inference.

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