urdb_get_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output content (scores, counts) but omits critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then details the 7 dimensions and additional data without waste. Every part earns its place by providing essential context, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (detailed multi-dimensional scoring) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains what data is returned but misses behavioral aspects like safety, performance, and response structure. For a tool with no structured output, more guidance on return values would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'slug' with a clear description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for a 'specific product', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 full integrity breakdown') and resource ('for a specific product'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'urdb_list_products' (list) and 'urdb_search' (search). It explicitly details the 7 dimensions and additional data (change event and recall counts), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'urdb_list_products' or 'urdb_search'. It implies usage for detailed product analysis but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, such as needing a product slug from another tool.

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