GetProductsId

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a product, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The mention of expanding relations or selecting fields hints at optional features but lacks detail on how they work or their impact.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key feature. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Retrieve a product by its ID') and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the second sentence could be more precise, as it vaguely hints at parameters without clear explanation.

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 (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for the agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, such as explaining parameter interactions, expected output, or error conditions. The mention of expanding relations or selecting fields is insufficient for the tool's scope.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema. It mentions 'expand the product's relations or select the fields that should be returned,' which loosely relates to the 'fields' parameter, but doesn't explain the purpose or usage of the other 8 parameters (e.g., 'region_id', 'limit', 'order'). With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the 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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a product by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('product'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'GetProducts' (which likely lists multiple products). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other ID-based retrieval tools like 'GetCollectionsId' or 'GetProductCategoriesId', which is why it's not a 5.

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 when to use this over 'GetProducts' (for listing) or other ID-based tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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