Get a product and its video direction

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: `import_status` value meanings, the `video_direction.drafting` readiness flag, and the meaning of `video_direction.credit_cost`. It tells the agent how the tool behaves over time and how to interpret the result.

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 well structured: the core purpose is front-loaded, and each paragraph adds necessary operational context—polling usage, status interpretation, and credit cost. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics, and it does so well. It covers the key fields an agent needs to decide whether the product is ready, whether import failed, and what generation will cost, making it complete enough to use correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, `product_id`, and the schema already describes it fully with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Read a product' and then enumerates exactly what is returned—import findings, video direction/settings, and generated videos. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_video, which would focus on a single video.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: poll after `import_product_from_url` or `create_product_from_images`, with a recommended polling interval. It also explains the readiness condition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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