GetProductTypesId

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ability to expand relations and select fields, which adds some context about optional functionality. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and optional features. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured by separating mandatory and optional aspects.

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 complexity of a retrieval tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameter usage but lacks details on authentication, error responses, return format, and explicit behavioral traits. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter (id, fields) is documented in the schema. The description mentions 'expand the product type's relations or select the fields that should be returned,' which hints at the purpose of the 'fields' parameter but doesn't explain its format, syntax, or valid values. It doesn't address the 'id' parameter at all. This partial compensation is inadequate given the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'product type by its ID', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like GetProductTypes (which likely lists all product types) by focusing on a single ID lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other ID-based tools like GetProductsId, leaving minor room for improvement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions expanding relations or selecting fields, but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or when to choose this over other retrieval tools like GetProductTypes. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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