Get full details for one product by its handle: variants, SKUs, options, prices, images, and spec metafields. Open tool — no API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | The product handle (slug), e.g. from search_products. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Open tool — no API key required.' This helps the agent understand auth requirements. It also describes the return content (variants, SKUs, etc.), but does not mention potential errors or rate limits. Sufficient for a simple read-only lookup.
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?
Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds authentication transparency. Every sentence 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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description explains what data is returned (variants, SKUs, options, prices, images, spec metafields). Lacks details on error handling for invalid handles, but adequate for a straightforward lookup tool.
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 100% for the single parameter. The description adds context by stating 'by its handle' and referencing search_products as the source, slightly enhancing the schema's description. With high coverage, baseline is 3, and the description provides marginal added value.
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?
Clearly states it gets full details for one product by its handle, listing specific data included (variants, SKUs, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like search_products (search vs single product), get_price_and_lead_time (pricing only), and request_quote (quotes).
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?
Provides clear context: use the product handle (e.g., from search_products) to retrieve full details. Implicitly guides the agent to first search, then use this tool. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools cover different use cases.
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: search vs details vs price/lead time vs quote request. No overlap in functionality.
All names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores. Clear and predictable: search_products, get_product_details, get_price_and_lead_time, request_quote.
Four tools is well-scoped for a catalog server covering discovery, details, pricing, and quoting. No excess or deficiency.
Covers the full product inquiry and quoting workflow. Minor gap: no tool to list products without a search query, but search is robust enough to handle browsing.