get_product

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals output scope ('every image perspective and full fulfillment detail') and location_id default behavior, but does not discuss authentication, failures, or side effects beyond the implied read operation.

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: one purpose sentence and two argument lines. No filler or redundancy, with the most important purpose front-loaded.

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 the output schema supplies return structure and the tool has only two parameters, the description covers what the tool does and how to supply both parameters. It lacks explicit alternative routing but is otherwise complete for invocation.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining product_id is the ID/UPC from search_products and that location_id prices against a store with a saved default. This adds meaningful guidance absent from the schema.

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 first sentence 'Get one product with every image perspective and full fulfillment detail' uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes this from search_products by targeting a single product. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 Args section says product_id comes from search_products, which implies a two-step flow but does not explicitly state when to use get_product versus alternatives. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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