Get product

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the two-mode lookup distinction but discloses nothing about parameter precedence, mutual exclusivity, or return behavior. Modest added context beyond the 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?

A single 12-word sentence with the verb front-loaded. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every word adds information. Ideal for a simple get-style tool.

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 3-parameter, zero-required read tool with a rich annotation set, the description covers the core invocation adequately. The remaining gaps — no output schema so the return value is unspecified, and the product_id/identifier relationship not fully disambiguated — are minor for a simple get 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 description coverage is only 33%, leaving product_id and identifier undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by decoding both: 'Moneybird id' maps to product_id and 'identifier' is the custom identifier field. It stops short of clarifying whether the two are mutually exclusive or which takes precedence when both are supplied.

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 states a specific verb ("Retrieve"), resource ("product"), and the two lookup keys ("Moneybird id" or "identifier"). It clearly implies single-item retrieval, which distinguishes it from the list_products sibling, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 context is implied: call this when you already have a product's Moneybird id or its custom identifier, rather than listing products. However, there is no explicit when/when-not language and no alternative tool is named, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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