get_product

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: no auth required, supplier text is wrapped in untrusted tags, and the return includes variations and ISO country codes. Lacks mention of side effects (none expected) or rate limits, but sufficient for a read-only tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage boundaries, then safety note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 detail-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, result components, and a safety concern. Nothing essential 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description need not add much. It correctly implies the parameter is a product identifier but doesn't add new semantic value beyond the schema's description.

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 it returns full detail for a single product by ID, including variations and shipping coverage. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming search_products, list_products, and evaluate_product.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (when you have a product ID and need variants/shipping) and when not to use (search, browse, score viability), naming specific alternative tools.

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