Product cards

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's job is to add operational detail — and it does: 'one request per product' discloses the fan-out cost, and 'failures go to errors' discloses partial-failure semantics rather than all-or-nothing behavior. It stops short of noting rate-limit or throttling implications of that per-product fan-out.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payoff (what records you get and how many), followed by the operational caveat. No filler; the line break before the failure-handling note is slightly odd but the content earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description correctly spends its budget enumerating return fields (name, price window, shop counts, category, brand) and documents error routing, which is the main behavioral unknown for a batch call. Remaining gaps — identifier format, partial-success ordering, whether missing products count as errors — are moderate rather than disqualifying.

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 reported at 0%, so the description needs to carry the parameter meaning, and it largely does not — it never says whether the array accepts UUIDs, URLs, or both, nor what happens to malformed entries. Its only parameter-relevant content ('up to 10 products') merely restates the schema's maxItems constraint.

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?

The description states the resource (short product records) and the scope (up to 10 products at once), and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell what it gets back. The verb is implicit rather than stated, and it never names the single-item sibling tb_product, so the batch-vs-single distinction must be inferred from 'at once'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'up to 10 products at once' framing suggests this is the multi-product path versus a single-product lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named despite tb_product, tb_search and tb_offers being available siblings.

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