Get Full Product

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

Annotations already mark read-only and idempotent, but the description goes beyond them by detailing the exact error behavior: 'never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}' with an example. It also adds the practical consequence of idempotency—'after correcting the input it is always safe to retry'—and the PREMIUM access constraint, none of which are present in annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is organized into clear segments: purpose, premium note, example, use cases, and error handling. It is slightly repetitive ('Load one product in full' and 'Returns persona plus every skill for one product' say the same thing), but every other sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to use it, how errors are surfaced, retry safety, and the premium requirement. No critical behavioral or usage information is missing.

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%, with slug described as 'Product slug exactly as returned by search_catalog.' The description adds a concrete example input ('{"slug": "inbox-zero-assistant"}') and shows the expected shape of a successful response, which helps agents understand how the slug parameter maps to behavior beyond the schema's bare definition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Load one product in full: persona plus every skill's instructions.' It explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating it is not for a single skill (get_full_skill) and not for a bundle of products (get_full_kit), making the tool's unique scope unmistakable.

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?

It gives a direct usage condition: 'Use when the caller wants the whole product.' It also names exclusions and alternatives, instructing agents to use get_full_skill for a single skill and get_full_kit for a bundle. The premium plan note adds a prerequisite, further clarifying when this tool applies.

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