Get full product details by PID. locale localises the product name, currency, pricing and URL (en-AU, en-US, en-NZ, de-DE, ja-JP); descriptions are English for all locales.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | Product ID | |
| locale | No | Locale (en-AU, en-US, en-NZ, de-DE, ja-JP). Localises name/currency/URL; description stays English. | en-AU |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adds meaningful context by explaining locale's effect on name/currency/pricing/URL while descriptions remain English. This goes beyond a simple getter and discloses a non-obvious behavior, though error behavior and response format are not covered.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds useful detail about locale behavior. 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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and a key nuance (localization), making it sufficiently complete. It could be slightly richer by mentioning what 'full product details' includes, but that is minor.
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% (baseline 3), but the description adds value beyond the schema: it explicitly lists 'pricing' as a localized field, which the schema omits, and clarifies that descriptions stay English across all locales.
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 'Get full product details by PID' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource, and the PID parameter makes it distinct from sibling getters like get_brand or get_categories.
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 implies when to use this tool (when you have a product ID and need full details), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using search_products when the PID is unknown.
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 targets a distinct resource or action, from product and brand lookups to editorial collections and regional delivery info. Even similar listing tools (categories, industries, aesthetics, intents, inspirations, on-trend) are differentiated by their specific names and descriptions.
The naming pattern is strongly consistent: lowercase with underscores, and almost all tools use the get_ prefix plus a resource name. The only deviation is search_products, which uses 'search' instead of 'get', but it still follows the verb_noun structure.
With 21 tools, the server is on the heavy end of the typical range. The breadth is justified by the many distinct content types (products, brands, editorials, company info, reviews, regions, FAQ), but the count feels slightly bloated compared to leaner MCP servers.
The tool surface covers the full research and selection journey: product search, details, quotes, FAQ, company credibility, delivery areas, and inspirational content. The main gap is the lack of any transactional or order-placement tool, but that appears outside the intended scope.
