get_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well on the output side: it names the data sources (own panel, product page), that pricing/stock is live, and that the response includes either a cart link or a UCP checkout profile. It doesn't state behavior when a product cannot be resolved or whether matching is exact vs fuzzy.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the scope ("One KABO product in full") followed by a colon-style enumeration of return contents. Every clause maps to a distinct piece of returned data; nothing is repeated from the name or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value — and it does in concrete terms across nutrition, pricing, stock, and checkout. The remaining gap is failure behavior (product not found, ambiguous name), which matters for a name-based lookup with free-text examples. Otherwise complete for a read-only single-item fetch.

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% and the single `product` parameter is already documented with examples ("butter coffee, white chocolate blueberry, assorted"). The description adds no lookup-format detail — e.g., whether the value is a name, slug, or ID — so it stays at the schema-backed baseline.

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+resource ("One KABO product in full") and enumerates exactly what comes back — nutrition panel, composition, dietary suitability, price/stock per pack, price per serving, cart link. The "one product" framing implicitly contrasts with list_products and compare_products, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch details for a single named product. There is no explicit when-to-use, no pointer to compare_products vs search_guides, and no stated precedence for lookup by name. For a single-item fetch tool with obvious siblings, the agent must infer the routing.

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