Product details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds depth about the record's granularity (per-shade/size/seller variant pricing and max quantity), but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on a missing/ambiguous slug. Adequate but not rich beyond annotations.

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 payload contents, then usage, then sibling routing — a sensible order. The field enumeration is long, and since an output schema exists it partly restates the return shape, but every listed field is genuinely useful for deciding whether to call this tool.

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 annotations covering safety, a 100%-documented single parameter, and an output schema handling return values, the description only needs to establish purpose and routing — which it does. The remaining gap is minor: no guidance on failure modes (invalid slug, product not found).

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% and the single parameter is fully documented there (slug pattern plus numeric id example, including the sibling tools it comes from). The tool description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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?

Specific verb ('Get one product's full record') plus an enumerated content list: price/discount in Toman, per-variant price/stock/max quantity, rating, brand, category path, attributes, description. This is clearly distinguishable from kh_search (list-level) and kh_reviews (review-level) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit trigger ('Use after kh_search / kh_browse when the user picks a product, or to check that the shade they want is in stock and what it costs') plus direct routing for adjacent needs: kh_reviews for reviews, kh_similar for alternatives, kh_store_info for order-total fees. 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.