Get one catalog product by id: available denominations with prices, required order inputs, and any countries where the code cannot be redeemed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product id from search_catalog. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (denominations, inputs, country restrictions), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior or side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It leads with the core action and resource, then enumerates the returned data in a compact clause. Every word earns its place.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context by enumerating the key return categories. It does not address missing-ID scenarios or error cases, but these are standard for a get-by-id operation and not critical for the described scope.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' and explains its origin ('from search_catalog'). The description only repeats the 'by id' concept, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and resource ('catalog product') with an explicit identifier ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling search_catalog by targeting a single product and lists the key data included (denominations, required inputs, restricted countries).
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?
Usage is implied: this tool is for retrieving a specific product by its ID, so it would be used after obtaining an ID from search_catalog. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of alternatives or offer any when-not guidance, so the guidance is indirect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: searching, retrieving details, and purchasing. There is no overlap in their functions, making it clear which tool to use for each operation.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (buy_product, get_product, search_catalog) with snake_case naming. The pattern is predictable and unambiguous.
3 tools is well within the ideal range for a catalog server. Each tool covers a core operation (search, retrieve, purchase) without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle for a catalog: searching for products, getting product details, and purchasing. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of a catalog storefront.
