Get Lazada Product

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: the exact product data inspected, the caveat that 'contentCoverage: unavailable' should not be treated as a product claim, and the guardrail that Lazada remains authoritative and external enrichment requires user approval.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core inspection scope in the first sentence and important caveats in the second. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what data is inspected, adds critical caveats about contentCoverage and external enrichment, and does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It does not mention the 'url' parameter, its expected format, or that the URL must point to a Lazada product page; the schema only provides 'format: uri'. This leaves parameter meaning mostly to inference.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('Lazada product'), and enumerates the data categories returned: price, stock, promotions, description, specifications, and labelled ingredients/nutrition. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_products or probe_page, 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?

The intended use is implied: use this tool to inspect a Lazada product's details. However, there are no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives named, and the 'ask the user before external web enrichment' guidance concerns behavior rather than tool selection.

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