sevennow_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well. It discloses the return contents, the store-independent scope, the deliberate exclusion of price/availability/stock, and the 404 behavior for an unknown product_id. Nothing is hidden that an agent needs to predict behavior.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then systematically covers returned fields, parameter provenance, scope limitation, and error behavior. Each sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so in detail—nutrition panel contents, ingredients, allergens, variants, related products, and promotions. For a single-parameter lookup tool, it also covers the error case and the distinction from price/availability endpoints, making it complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter description already states that product_id comes from the three named endpoints. The tool description repeats that same source information and adds the 404 behavior, but does not materially extend the meaning of the parameter itself. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one 7NOW product's full reference record') and then enumerates exactly what that record contains (nutrition panel, ingredients, allergens, variants, related products, promotions). It also distinguishes itself from sibling endpoints by noting this record is store-independent and carries no price/availability.

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 tells the agent where product_id comes from (GET /7now/search, /7now/catalog, /7now/category) and explicitly says when NOT to use this tool: if per-store pricing, availability, or stock is needed, use those three endpoints instead. This is clear when-to-use vs alternative guidance.

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