get_digikala_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements, no rate limits, no error behavior for invalid IDs. 'Normalized' hints at post-processing but is never explained.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; the brevity comes at the cost of any usable detail.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what a 'normalized' product contains and how missing IDs behave. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the response.

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% for the single product_id string, so the description must compensate and does not — no format, ID source, or example is given. Only the word 'Digikala' hints at the ID's namespace.

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 (get) and resource (normalized Digikala product), and the marketplace qualifier distinguishes it from get_snappshop_product and search_digikala. The single-item vs. search distinction is only implied by the singular 'one', 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of search_digikala as the alternative for browsing, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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