One product in full: summary, per-tier GBP prices, deliverables, and the exact input contract an order must fill. Ids come from get_catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Product id from get_catalog, e.g. "business-idea-gap-scan". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the returned data (summary, prices, deliverables, contract), indicating a safe read operation. Could add note on authorization or rate limits, but core behavior is transparent.
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 sentences, no redundant words. First sentence lists output contents, second sentence provides key context (ID source). Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Tool has one simple parameter and no output schema. Description covers return fields adequately. Could mention return format or error handling, but it's sufficient for a retrieval tool given the 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 has 100% coverage with one parameter. Description adds value by stating IDs come from get_catalog and hinting at the contract purpose ('exact input contract an order must fill'), beyond what schema says.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'product', listing exact contents: summary, per-tier GBP prices, deliverables, input contract. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool get_catalog (which provides list) by stating IDs come from there.
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?
Explicitly says IDs come from get_catalog, guiding sequence. Implies use after browsing catalog, but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives. Context is clear enough for selection.
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 purpose: full catalog retrieval, single product details, and user feedback submission. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_catalog, get_product, submit_demand), making the naming predictable and clear.
With only 3 tools, the server is on the low end of reasonable scope. While it covers basic read and feedback operations, it feels thin for a fulfillment server.
The server lacks essential operations for a fulfillment domain, such as order placement, order management, or product administration. The tool surface has significant gaps.