Fetch full detail for one product by id (from a prior search result). Returns citable text with price, savings, 90-day price history, and buying options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product id or slug from a search result |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Returns citable text with price, savings, 90-day price history, and buying options', describing the response content. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences, first states purpose and usage context, second describes return values. No unnecessary words, well-front-loaded.
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 simple tool (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. No gaps.
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% with parameter 'id' already described as 'Product id or slug from a search result'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'product', and the scope 'by id (from a prior search result)'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' (lists) and 'compare_prices' (comparison).
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 phrase 'from a prior search result' clearly indicates when to use this tool, implying it should be called after a search. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.
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.
Most tools are distinct, but 'fetch' and 'get_product' have overlapping functionality (both provide full detail and buying options), and 'search' vs 'search_catalog' could confuse agents about which to use for general search. Otherwise clear.
Predominantly uses 'get_' prefix for retrieval tools and 'search' for search tools, but 'fetch' and 'lookup_catalog' deviate slightly from the pattern, reducing consistency.
13 tools is well-scoped for a commerce server covering product discovery, pricing, deals, collections, and gift ideas without being overwhelming or sparse.
Covers key product research and price comparison workflows, but lacks tools for user interaction (e.g., wishlists, purchasing) or multi-product comparisons, which would enhance completeness.
