get_product

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds only that the result is the 'dettaglio completo' — i.e. a full record rather than a list-summary row — but says nothing about error behavior for a missing id, permission requirements, or cross-company visibility, which is where the remaining value would lie.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key concept ('prodotto o servizio a listino') front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the omissions scored elsewhere rather than through deliberate compression.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, so expectations are modest, but the required 'id' argument is undocumented in both schema and description and the scope of 'dettaglio completo' is never specified. An agent would still be guessing about the identifier's origin and what the response contains.

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 50%: company_id is documented in the schema, but the required 'id' parameter has no description anywhere. The description does not clarify that id is the product identifier or how it relates to listino entries, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the one required parameter.

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 'Dettaglio completo di un prodotto o servizio a listino' clearly names the resource (a catalog product or service) and states that it returns the full detail record. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_products, get_price_list_items, or get_product-adjacent getters, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no sibling routing signal.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to use this after list_products, nothing says it differs from get_price_list_items, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The agent must infer the intended flow from the name alone.

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