Get Product

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

The description only states the function and endpoint. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but there is still no extra information, so a neutral 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and endpoint. It is free of extraneous information and every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 simple read-only get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description is minimal but adequate in combination with the schema and annotations. However, it does not state what the response contains or any edge cases, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Given the low complexity, the description is incomplete but functional.

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?

There is one required parameter productId with a comprehensive schema (type, format, pattern) but no description. The description's 'por ID' merely echoes the parameter name and the endpoint, adding no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not meaningfully.

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 function: 'Obtém produto por ID' (gets product by ID) and specifies the REST endpoint /v1/products/{productId}. This is a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_products or get_order.

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 implies use when you have a product ID and need a single product, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like list_products exist, but no comparative guidance is given beyond the inherent difference in function.

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