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 only restates the tool's name ('Get details of a specific product') and offers no additional context such as required permissions, error behavior, or return format. The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the name already conveys.

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, concise sentence of six words with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately sized for such a simple read operation.

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 get tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on when to use the tool (beyond what is implied), and it does not describe the return value format or any edge cases. It is a viable but sparse description that leaves room for improvement.

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% for both parameters (product_id and fields), so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention or elaborate on the parameters, relying entirely on the schema. It adds no extra meaning beyond the structured field descriptions.

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 'Get details of a specific product' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific product'), clearly indicating a single-product retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_products' by emphasizing 'specific', which implies retrieval by ID rather than listing.

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 wording 'a specific product' implies usage for retrieving one product, contrasting with list operations, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. The tool name and description imply the use case, but no alternatives are named.

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