Phone specifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes a genuine caveat beyond that — values come back in Persian/English as the site has them — which warns the agent about mixed-language output. It says nothing about response size limits, pagination, or failure behavior for an invalid id.

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?

The leading sentence delivers purpose, scope and source immediately, followed by a data-fidelity caveat and a routing hint — no filler. The parenthetical field list is slightly redundant given the sections enum, but it still helps set expectations for what 'full specification' means.

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 read-only two-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema, the description covers identity, source, output shape at a field level, and downstream tool sequencing. With no output schema, slightly more on the actual return structure (single object, units, truncation with sections) would have completed it.

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 the id sourced from mi_search/mi_find/mi_market_prices and the sections enum fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's field list (display, chipset, RAM/storage, cameras, battery, launch date, SIM, network bands) loosely maps to the section values but adds no rules about combining sections or the cost of requesting all.

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 the full specification sheet of one phone, tablet or smartwatch') plus the data source (Mobile.ir) and what is bundled in (rating and price range). The enumerations of spec areas make it unambiguous how this differs from retrieval siblings like mi_search or mi_compare.

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 routes the agent onward: 'Call mi_shop_prices next for who sells it and mi_price_history for the trend,' which defines the boundary between this tool and the pricing siblings. It stops short of stating when to prefer mi_compare instead of pulling raw specs, so no full when-not guidance.

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