get_productLifecycle, official or estimated price, key dates, availability (on sale or not, release date and its basis, where to buy), report count and how well-sourced the reports are. Works for products with no reports yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_slug | Yes | A product_slug, e.g. 'apple-watch' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / product_slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"From list_products, e.g. 'apple-watch'"New value: +"A product_slug, e.g. 'apple-watch'"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about the returned data, including official vs. estimated prices, availability basis, and report sourcing quality, plus the important note that products with no reports are supported.
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 compact and front-loads the returned data fields in a single sentence fragment followed by a short caveat sentence. It wastes little space, though the fragment structure is not maximally clear.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately lists the main returned attributes, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool with 18 siblings, it lacks routing guidance explaining how it differs from related tools, leaving a meaningful gap.
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?
With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents product_slug and gives an example. The description adds no additional meaning, constraints, or format details for the parameter, so the baseline of 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 tool name and title state a clear verb and resource ('Get one product's status'), and the description enumerates the specific product attributes returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_product_facts or get_product_news.
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 offers only a coverage caveat ('Works for products with no reports yet') and gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many related sibling tools. It does not name alternatives or state when this tool should not be used.
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.