Read a product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it requires WooCommerce, needs manage_woocommerce, returns a not-found error for unknown ids, and enumerates the fields returned. It does not describe response structure in depth, but for a simple read tool this is close to complete.

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 compact and front-loaded: it begins with the action and resource, then lists returned fields, edge behavior, alternatives, and prerequisites. Every sentence and clause earns its place with no redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (id, name, sku, price, regular_price, sale_price, stock, stock_status, status). It also covers authentication, plugin dependency, error behavior for unknown ids, and points to the relevant list/update siblings, leaving no critical gap for an agent calling this tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, already documenting it as 'Product id.' The description reinforces that lookup is by id but adds no format, type, or validation details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'get one product by id', and lists the fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from wp_wc_list_products (lists products with ids) and wp_wc_update_product (changes one), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It explains that an unknown id returns a not-found error and names the sibling tools for listing and updating products. This gives clear conditions for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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