get_product_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Return relevant fields' lightly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose auth requirements, potential errors, output structure, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but behavioral traits beyond that are missing.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and keeps the definition tight. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimal but mostly workable. However, it lacks any usage guidance, explicitly states no parameter semantics, and gives no indication of how this differs from search_products. The output schema partially compensates for missing return-value detail, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter's meaning. The phrase 'one product variant' helps connect product_id to a product variant, but the description does not explicitly state that product_id is the identifier of the variant to fetch. With a single self-explanatory integer parameter, this minimal association is adequate.

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 uses a clear verb+resource pattern: 'Return relevant fields for one product variant.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools targeting lots, locations, and stock moves by naming the specific entity type. However, 'relevant fields' is vague and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_products, which may also return product fields.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling search tools like search_products. The phrase 'for one product variant' weakly implies a single-record lookup, but there is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or when to prefer a different tool.

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