Get Product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: results are cached up to 60 seconds (staleness bound), shipping data is absent, and the location parameter is ignored by the current Digikala adapter. That last point is exactly the kind of caveat annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the caching bound, then the parameter caveat. No filler. 'Shipping remains unknown' is terse to the point of ambiguity, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the two things a caller cannot derive from structured fields: cache staleness and the inert location parameter. Only the market/enum semantics are left unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description has to compensate and only partly does. It explains that 'location' is currently unused, which is valuable and prevents misuse, but 'market' and its digikala-only enum and 'product_id' format are left to the schema. One of three parameters is meaningfully covered.

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: 'Read product details and seller offers.' An agent can tell this is a single-product lookup that also bundles offer data, distinguishing it from get_products_batch and list_offers. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. With ~40 siblings including search_products, get_product_variants, list_offers and compare_offers, the description never tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over those. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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