Get detailed info for a single Lowtoxgear product by URL handle. Returns title, vendor, type, tags, full description HTML, variants with prices/SKU/availability, and images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Product URL slug, e.g. "black-hole-duffel-40l" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed info (list of fields) and implies read-only behavior via 'Get,' but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds value beyond the name but lacks full behavioral transparency.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence and return details in the second. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
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 simple, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, how to use it (by handle), and what it returns (full list of fields). No gaps are evident given the tool's simplicity.
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 'handle,' so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's description of the handle as a 'Product URL slug,' except the example value 'black-hole-duffel-40l' which provides practical guidance but does not significantly augment meaning.
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 explicitly states 'Get detailed info for a single Lowtoxgear product by URL handle,' specifying the verb ('get'), resource ('product'), and scope ('single by URL handle'). It lists return fields (title, vendor, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like search_products (search multiple) and list_collections (collections).
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 communicates clear context: use this tool when you need detailed information for one product identified by its URL handle. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context makes it obvious that for single-product lookups this is appropriate, while search_products handles broader searches.
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.
Tools are largely distinct: filter_by_certification is for certification-specific searches, search_products for general keyword search, get_product for single product details, list_collections for collections, and get_policies for policies. The two search tools have overlapping purposes but descriptions clarify their specific intents.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: filter_by_certification, get_policies, get_product, list_collections, search_products. This makes it easy for an agent to predict naming conventions.
With 5 tools covering search, filter, detailed info, collections, and policies, the set is well-scoped for a storefront read-only API. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers key product discovery and policy retrieval, but lacks a dedicated tool to list all products or products by collection. This forces reliance on search_products, which may not return all results or handle empty queries gracefully.