tiffany_product

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the output scope, including 'live stock status,' 'category tree,' and 'every color/style variation,' but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or how invalid ids are handled. This is adequate but not deeply 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The field list is long but justified because there is no output schema, and the parameter provenance is placed in a clear second sentence. Everything 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?

For a one-parameter, single-item fetch tool with no output schema, this is complete. It explains where the parameter comes from, what the tool returns, and the scope of the result. Error handling and rate limits would be nice but are not necessary for this complexity.

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?

The schema already describes product_id at 100% coverage as 'Item id, from a search or category result's id field.' The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by identifying it as Tiffany & Co.'s own item id and naming the exact sibling endpoints that produce it.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get a Tiffany & Co. product' and clarifies scope with 'Returns full product detail for one item.' It differentiates this tool from the tiffany-search and tiffany-category siblings by explaining that product_id is their products[].id field and that this tool returns full detail rather than search/category listings.

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 explains when to use the tool: when you have a product_id, and it tells the agent exactly where to get that id (tiffany-search or tiffany-category products[].id). It does not explicitly say 'use search tools when you lack a product_id,' but the provenance note makes the intended workflow clear.

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