Swagger: Get Portal Product

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., authorization requirements, rate limits, or response characteristics). It simply restates the action.

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 very short and front-loaded with the action. However, it redundantly lists the parameter description which is already in the schema. It could be more concise by omitting the parameter section since the schema covers it, but it's not overly verbose.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no side effects), the description covers the essential information: what it does and what input is required. Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed. However, it could mention that the product is a 'portal product' to align with the title, and it omits any notes about the meaning of 'resource' in this context.

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 100% for the single parameter `productId`, and the description in text replicates the schema description verbatim. No additional semantic information (e.g., format, examples, or validation constraints) is provided beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score for high coverage.

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 action ('Retrieve information') and the resource ('a specific product resource'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create/delete/update/list by focusing on retrieval of a single product. The title and toolset further reinforce this purpose. No ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `swagger_list_portal_products`. While the purpose is clear from the name and toolset label, there is no guidance on prerequisites, context, or exclusionary criteria. The agent must infer usage from sibling names, which is not ideal.

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