get_productGet full details of one product by its id or SKU: description, per-size stock, all images, buy links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product id (from a product URL or search result) or SKU |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the information returned (description, stock, images, links) but omits important behavioral details such as whether the tool is a safe read operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if id not found), or pagination behavior.
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 of 18 words, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word is informative; no superfluous content. Highly efficient and 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what input it requires, and what output to expect. No output schema is needed because the description lists the return contents explicitly.
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 100% (the 'id' parameter is documented). The description adds value by clarifying that the id can be a product id or SKU, and that it comes from a URL or search result. This reinforces the schema and provides practical context beyond the schema alone.
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 clearly states the action ('Get full details'), resource ('one product'), and required input ('by its id or SKU'), listing specific return fields (description, per-size stock, images, buy links). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools: get_store_info (store-level) and search_products (returns multiple results).
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 specifies exactly when to use this tool: when you have a product id or SKU and need comprehensive details. It implicitly contrasts with search_products (which finds products by query). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for other 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 has a clearly distinct purpose: product details, store info, and catalog search. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_product, get_store_info, search_products).
Three tools is appropriate for an informational sneaker shop server, covering search, details, and store overview without being too few or excessive.
Covers core informational needs (search, details, store info) but lacks some features like browsing categories or a list of all products, though not critical.