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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful context about what the record contains (including which colors are buyable and which branches stock it), though some of that overlaps the output schema and it says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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 verb and scope in the first clause, then a compact field inventory, then a routing block. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers purpose, sequencing, and sibling handoffs. Return-value detail is not required given the output schema, so 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including the origin ('from mk_search / mk_browse') and a concrete example id. The description adds no additional meaning about product_id, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one product's full record') and enumerates the returned facets: price/discount in Toman, stock, colors, brand, category path, rating, and branches. This cleanly separates it from discovery siblings (mk_search, mk_browse) and from the drill-down siblings that cover adjacent data (mk_specs, mk_reviews, mk_shipping).

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 sequencing: 'Use after mk_search / mk_browse when the user picks a product' tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It also routes four related needs to named alternatives, so there is no ambiguity about which sibling handles specs, reviews, or delivery.

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