ingrammicro_get_product_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds context that the part number comes from ingrammicro_search_products, which is useful, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, pagination, or rate limits. With annotations covering the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for the minimal extra context.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the primary action and the source of the parameter; the second sentence provides the alternative usage. It is front-loaded with the most important information and no wasted 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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, where to get the required parameter, and when to use a different tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already states it's a unique SKU with a max length. The tool description adds valuable context by telling the agent that the part number is obtained from ingrammicro_search_products, which ties the parameter to a specific source and helps the agent understand how to populate it correctly. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get full catalog detail for one product by its Ingram Micro part number'. It also differentiates from the sibling tool ingrammicro_get_product_detail_by_reference by naming the condition (when you only have vendor part number or subscription plan id/name). This gives an agent precise understanding of what this tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (when you have the Ingram part number from ingrammicro_search_products) and when to use the alternative (ingrammicro_get_product_detail_by_reference for vendor part numbers or subscription plan id/name). This is a clear, direct usage guideline with an explicit alternative and condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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