get_productUse after find_packaging_for_item or search_products to pull full detail for a handle: all variants, SKUs, dimensions, weight, stock. Input: handle. Call before building a cart to map qty to the right variant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description builds on this by specifying the data returned (all variants, SKUs, dimensions, weight, stock) and how to use the result (map qty to variant), which adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 concise two-sentence structure. The first sentence states the purpose and data returned, the second provides input and usage scenario. No filler words; every phrase 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, annotations covering read-only), the description is fairly complete. It covers when to use, what it returns, and how to apply it. It does not discuss error cases or the openWorldHint implications, but for a lightweight read operation these are acceptable omissions.
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 0% for the single required parameter 'handle'. The description only says 'Input: handle', which essentially repeats the schema. The context implies handle comes from search_products or find_packaging_for_item, but it does not explain what a handle is or its format, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool pulls full detail for a handle, listing specific fields (variants, SKUs, dimensions, weight, stock). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as a follow-up to find_packaging_for_item or search_products, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use after find_packaging_for_item or search_products' and 'Call before building a cart to map qty to the right variant.' This gives clear when-to-use context and implies the alternative (search tools are for discovery, this is for detailed retrieval).
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_inventory and inventory_status both focus on live stock, find_packaging_for_item and pack_calculator both handle dimension-based fitting, and create_cart_url, prepare_purchase_handoff, and get_cart_handoff_candidates all revolve around cart handoff. While descriptions add some clarity, an agent could easily select the wrong tool without careful reading.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_inventory, get_pricing, search_products), but inventory_status and pack_calculator are noun-based and break the convention. The naming is still predictable and readable overall.
15 tools is at the upper edge of the ideal range, and the count feels slightly inflated due to overlapping inventory and cart-handoff tools. However, each tool has a defined purpose in the procurement workflow, so the count is not excessive.
The tool surface covers the full buyer journey: search, fit calculation, comparison, product detail, inventory check, pricing, cart creation, purchase handoff, shipping estimates, quotes, and reorder links. No critical dead ends were found.