get_product_media

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds context about the type of content returned (datasheets, images, documents, video links), but does not disclose potential limitations or behaviors beyond that. This is useful but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with no unnecessary words.

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 simple retrieval tool with one input and annotations confirming safety and open-world behavior, the description adequately conveys the scope of return values. However, it does not specify whether all listed media types are always included or if some may be null/empty, which could be relevant for an agent. Being a simple tool, it is mostly complete but could be clearer.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the single product_number parameter. It implies context by saying 'a product's' but does not explain what product_number is, its format, or how to obtain it. This adds minimal value over the schema's parameter name and type.

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 the tool retrieves a product's datasheets, images, documents, and video links, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product_details by scoping to media types.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_product_details or research_product. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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