get_product_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful inventory of what is returned, but says nothing about the effect or role of experience_topics, pagination, or why certain data may be absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the return contents with no filler. Efficient, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting information the complex parameter schema needs.

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 explaining return values is not strictly required. However, for a tool with an undocumented nested parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without the semantics needed to construct experience_topics correctly.

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 0%, and the schema defines a non-trivial nested experience_topics object (topic_id, aspect_variant_ids, desired/contrary state variants) that the description never mentions. Only product_id is implicitly inferable from context, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb (반환한다 / returns) and resource (상품 / product) and enumerates the returned content: objective attributes, detail Markdown, sellers, and key review attributes. This clearly separates it from search-oriented siblings like search_products, though it never explicitly names the distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance or prerequisites are given. It does not say when to reach for this instead of siblings such as search_products, get_offers, or find_review_attributes, which heavily overlap the seller and review content mentioned here.

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