Get a processed product

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool returns itemLevelIssues, supports multiple ID formats (including base64url and legacy local prefix), and may return 404 for recent products due to async processing. This is valuable context without contradicting 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 two focused sentences. The first sentence states the core function and key use case; the second covers identification and a timing caveat. No filler, key information 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?

For a simple read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains the main output focus (itemLevelIssues), how to specify the product, and a caveat about 404s. It does not enumerate all possible return fields, but no output schema exists and the description highlights the most relevant details for the tool's purpose.

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?

Although the schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, the tool description adds crucial semantic meaning by explaining the two alternative identification methods ('product' vs. content_language+feed_label+offer_id) and the format details. This goes beyond what the schema fields individually state.

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 returns 'one processed product including productStatus.itemLevelIssues' and explicitly identifies it as 'the place to see why a product is disapproved.' This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from list_products and other sibling tools.

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 provides clear usage context: use this to inspect item-level disapproval reasons. It also explains how to identify the product via two alternative formats and warns that a recently inserted product may 404 until processing completes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_products, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.