research_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that partial failures are returned under errors without discarding successful results, which is not covered by annotations. This is a meaningful addition to the tool's operating characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose and then adds the key behavioral caveat. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (nested request object, nine sub-parameters, many enrichment options) and lack of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not specify how returned data is structured, what the enrichments actually return, or how this tool relates to sibling getter functions, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only vaguely refers to 'optional enrichments' without explaining the specific include_* flags, the request object structure, or the account_id parameter. It groups the enrichment flags into one term, providing minimal semantic help beyond the parameter names.

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 gets product details with optional enrichments, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_product_details', leaving some ambiguity about when the two differ.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_product_details or the various get_* enrichment tools. It does not mention any specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without a clear decision framework.

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