get_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about including related entities ('prices') in the response, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving room for improvement.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one for the core purpose and one for parameter guidance. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity), preventing a perfect score.

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 low complexity (read-only, 2 parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., product fields or error formats), and it lacks context on prerequisites or limitations, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the 'include' parameter and its purpose, but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states (e.g., 'comma-separated list'). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'retrieve a product from Paddle by its ID.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_products' or 'create_product.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools (e.g., 'get_price'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning the 'include' parameter for related entities, suggesting when to use this tool for enriched data. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use statements or named alternatives (e.g., 'list_products' for multiple products). This makes it adequate but with gaps.

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