get_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the return fields (title, price, image, vendor, store domain, timestamps), which is helpful, but it does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation. The implied read-only nature of a 'Get' is reasonable but not explicitly stated.

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 a single clear sentence that states the purpose and lists useful return fields. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every part contributes meaningfully with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the action and a list of returned fields. However, it claims to return 'full details' but only lists six fields, leaving questions about other potential fields (e.g., description, variants). Also, 'timestamps' is vague without specifying which timestamps or their format. The description could be more precise to fully inform the agent.

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 input schema covers the sole parameter 'id' with a description ('The Cart product ID.'), and the description restates it as 'by its Cart product ID.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('product') with a clear identifier ('by its Cart product ID'). It distinguishes effectively from sibling tools like 'search_products' (which finds products by criteria) and 'get_store_products' (which lists all products for a store).

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 clearly states the context: use this tool to retrieve full details for a single product when you have its Cart product ID. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer that this is for specific-ID lookups, and sibling tools like 'search_products' exist for other scenarios.

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