Product details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine data-semantics context beyond them: price_min/price_max span all offers including unreliable ones, while cheapest_offer is the cheapest *usable* offer among those embedded in the page — a distinction that matters for interpreting results. It doesn't mention rate limits or cost, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loads the return contents, then routing, then the price-field caveat. No filler sentences; each clause either defines scope, routes to a sibling, or disambiguates a field.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, naming the fields and clarifying the price semantics. With 2 params at 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (product with min/max length and accepted id formats, full_specs boolean) are already documented in the schema. The description's price-field detail actually explains response fields, not parameters, so it adds little parameter-level meaning. 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+resource ('Full record of one product') and enumerates the returned fields: name, price range across shops in Toman, category path, brand, key specs, cheapest offer. An agent can distinguish this from tb_search or tb_sellers purely from the description.

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 tb_search' and names three alternatives with their selecting conditions: tb_sellers for per-shop prices, tb_deal_check for a buying decision, tb_compare for model comparison. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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