Read one published canonical product with variants, category links, evidence scope, observation dates, and freshness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false. The description adds useful behavioral scope by stating only published canonical products are returned and by listing the kinds of information included, such as variants, evidence scope, observation dates, and freshness.
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 entire description is one tightly scoped sentence. It avoids repetition of annotations, does not restate the input schema, and uses front-loaded structure: verb, resource, and then the included payload features.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return value details do not need to be repeated in the description. The remaining gap is product_id usage guidance, but for such a simple one-parameter getter, the description is otherwise behaviorally complete enough.
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 has only one parameter, product_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description never clarifies where product_id comes from, what it represents beyond an identifier, or how it relates to search results. The parameter name itself is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 opens with a precise verb and resource: "Read one published canonical product". It clearly distinguishes this from listing/search tools by emphasizing "one" and "published canonical", so it reads as a singular fetch-by-ID tool rather than a search or aggregate endpoint.
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 clearly conveys that this tool is for retrieving a single published canonical product, with no ambiguity about the intended use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the contrast with search_products and list_* tools is obvious enough from the wording.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.