get_product_images

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 adequately describes the core operation (retrieving images) and mentions the default perspective behavior, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details beyond stating it returns 'The product image.'

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter explanations, and return value description in just 4 sentences. Each sentence adds clear value, and the information is front-loaded with the most important guidance appearing immediately after the purpose statement.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, usage workflow, parameter meanings, and return type. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like authentication, error handling, or image format specifics, but given the tool's relative simplicity and clear sibling relationships, it's reasonably 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential semantic context for all 3 parameters: product_id as 'unique product identifier,' perspective with default value and typical examples, and location_id with its fallback behavior. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.

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 specific action ('Get an image') and resource ('for a specific product from the requested perspective'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_product_details which provides metadata rather than images. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by directing users to 'Use get_product_details first to see what perspectives are available,' creating a clear workflow dependency. It also distinguishes this tool from get_product_details by specifying this retrieves images while that tool shows available perspectives.

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