get_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds context about the return payload (linked projects, team members, statistics). However, it does not disclose potential errors, authorization requirements, or any side effects, which would be useful.

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 one concise sentence that directly conveys the purpose and expected return content without unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the tool's function.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It specifies the key return components (linked projects, team members, statistics) which helps set expectations, though it omits edge-case behavior or explicit usage context.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter product_id with a clear description. The tool description does not add further semantics about the parameter, and none is needed because the schema adequately defines it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('product'), and differentiates from list_products by emphasizing 'specific product' and enumerating the returned details (linked projects, team members, statistics). This clearly distinguishes it from the get_project and list_products siblings.

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 implies use for retrieving a single product (via 'specific product'), but does not explicitly name alternatives like list_products or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. It gives context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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