Get Product Media

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

Annotations already mark readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds behavioral context: reads from a cached snapshot, returns links without downloading media, and treats storefront descriptions as untrusted. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but adds real value beyond 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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core action and add a relevant trust/caching caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the data source and trust caveat adequately. It lacks parameter guidance, but the output schema and annotations carry much of the remaining burden.

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?

The single product_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its required numeric string pattern or any format details. Low coverage means the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 'Read' and resource 'official product image/video URLs and covers', plus source 'cached detail snapshot'. It is clearly distinct from sibling get_product, variants, and review tools, though it does not name a sibling directly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing is provided. The purpose implies reading media, but an agent is not told when to choose this over get_product or how to handle missing media.

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