product_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that data is sourced from search results because the direct product page is protected by an anti-bot mechanism. However, it does not mention possible limitations of search-sourced data or error/not-found behavior.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose and example are front-loaded, followed by a concise note on the data source workaround.

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 lookup tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states what the tool returns and why the data source differs from the obvious page. It lacks an explicit return schema or field list, but 'full product card' sufficiently communicates the output type.

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 compensates by defining 'code' as an article number and giving a concrete example. This adds real semantic meaning beyond the bare schema object, though it does not specify format constraints beyond the example.

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 states the tool returns the full product card for a given article code, with a concrete example ('1019872'). This distinguishes it from the search-oriented sibling tools by focusing on a single product lookup by exact code.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need complete product details for a known article code. It explains the workaround for the blocked product page, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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