product_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It implies a read-only product lookup through 'детальная карточка товара' and restricts the accepted input format. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens for invalid or unavailable products; these are gaps, but the simple read semantics and output schema mitigate them.

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?

One compact, information-dense sentence. Every part is useful: the tool's purpose, the parameter meaning, the expected format, and the source of the value. No wasted words.

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?

Given a single required parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics and provenance. The only notable omissions are explicit usage boundaries and behavior for invalid inputs, which are not critical for a simple product-details lookup.

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%, and the description fully compensates. It explains that product_url can be a link or a slug, provides a concrete example (moloko-parmalat-35-1l-26730_ST), and tells the agent exactly where to obtain the value: the url field in search results.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a detailed product card and defines its key input, product_url. It is easy to distinguish from search-related siblings by meaning, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 description gives clear contextual guidance: product_url should be taken from the url field in search results, which implies a search-then-details workflow. It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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