get_product_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that location_id uses a 'preferred' default if not provided, which adds some context, but fails to describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' specifically includes. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the purpose statement, two parameter explanations, and return format. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter semantics and return format but lacks details about authentication, error handling, or what specific fields the 'dictionary' contains. For a product details tool with 2 parameters, this is minimally adequate but leaves significant 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?

The description provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: product_id as 'unique product identifier' and location_id with its default behavior. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by adding semantic context that the bare schema lacks, though it doesn't specify format constraints like string patterns.

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 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific product', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_product_images' or 'search_products_by_id', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_products_by_id' or 'get_product_images'. It mentions a default behavior for location_id but doesn't explain when this tool is preferred over other product-related tools.

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