Get DNS product details

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond those annotations by disclosing the return-shape composition (a card with price/images/availability fields) and the 16-hex product id format. It does not cover failure modes or how the product id is supplied, but with strong annotations the lowered bar is met.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: the return fields are front-loaded, the product-id format follows, and the sibling routing closes it out. Every sentence earns its place and the whole description is under 40 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 low-complexity lookup with strong annotations and no output schema, the field list and routing cover much of what an agent needs. The notable gap is that the schema declares zero parameters while the description references a product id in 16-hex format, leaving the invocation mechanism implicit. An agent cannot determine from this definition how to target the desired product.

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 is empty (0 params), which sets a baseline of 4. The description adds meaning by stating 'Product id is 16-hex', giving a format constraint the schema does not contain. However, it never explains how to pass the id given that the schema declares no parameters, so it does not fully close the gap.

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 title states the verb+resource ('Get DNS product details') and the description enumerates the exact return payload (price, oldPrice, rating, article, availability, stock enum, images, imageDataUri, delivery hints, location), making it unmistakable what this tool produces. It also explicitly differentiates itself from dns_product_specs and dns_products_batch, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit routing conditions: 'For full specs use dns_product_specs' and 'For 2+ cards prefer dns_products_batch.' This tells the agent both when to use this tool (single product summary card) and when to choose an alternative, which fully satisfies the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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