Product details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: offers are sorted 'cheapest cash price first', and installment_price/bnpl_price represent the same seller item in different price lists and are 'null if not offered'. That ordering and nullability contract is not derivable from 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 return contents, then the workflow, then the semantics of the ambiguous price fields. Every sentence carries information; nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully clarifies the two easily-confused price fields and the sort order. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and chain it into tl_price_basket.

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% — product_code and include_specs are both fully documented in the schema, including the TLP- pattern and the 'adds a few KB' cost note. The description's extra detail concerns returned price fields rather than the two input parameters, so it adds little on the parameter axis. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 offers') and enumerates exactly what is returned: price per color, seller/warranty, stock, delivery time, insurance and installment prices. This is clearly distinguishable from tl_search and tl_suggest, which the description itself names as upstream steps.

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 says 'Use after tl_search / tl_suggest', gives the user questions it answers (cheapest, which color, warranty, shipping, installments), and routes onward: 'Pass seller_item_id to tl_price_basket for a final total.' Both the entry condition and the follow-up tool are named.

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