get_product_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and describes what data is returned, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or imply any side effects. This is adequate but could be more explicit about behavioral traits like read-only nature or authorization requirements.

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 concise, consisting of just two sentences. The first sentence immediately conveys the tool's core purpose and output, while the second provides usage context and source of the SKU. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns (billing cycles, price, plans, config options), when to use it, and how to obtain the input. It does not detail the exact response structure, but for a detail retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 100% description coverage for the only parameter (sku), including an example value. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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: retrieving live, order-ready details for a single product SKU, including billing cycles, prices, plans, and config options. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_catalog_plan' by noting it is richer and intended for use before building an order or quoting a price.

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 the tool: 'right before building an order or quoting a price.' It also specifies where the SKU comes from (list_catalog_products or list_catalog_listings). It contrasts with get_catalog_plan, implying an alternative for simpler needs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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