Get product info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields (price, currency, stock level, description) and the format (structured JSON). It omits auth needs, rate limits, and error behavior on invalid IDs, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each carrying distinct information (modes, return shape, mutual-exclusivity rule). Nothing is redundant.

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 usefully enumerates return fields and format, and covers the parameter contract. It lacks pagination/limit guidance for the collection-listing mode, which is the only notable gap for a 2-param 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuinely new constraint the schema does not encode: the two parameters are mutually exclusive ('not both'). That is real meaning beyond the schema's example strings.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Look up By Adunni product details') and clearly presents the two operating modes: single-product by ID or full-collection listing. The resource (products) is unmistakably distinct from the sole sibling check_order_status, which concerns orders.

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?

Explicitly tells the caller to 'Provide either productId OR collection, not both', which governs parameter selection between the two modes. It stops short of naming the sibling tool or stating hard exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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