Swagger: Get Portal Product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no auth/scope requirements, no error behavior for an unknown or malformed identifier, no note on what the identifier format resolves against. The 'Toolset: Products' line is organizational, not behavioral.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, and the parameter block is compact. The duplication of the schema's productId text is mild waste but not harmful, and there is no filler prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has only one required parameter. What remains missing is the practical context an agent needs to actually obtain a valid identifier and to know this is the read-only counterpart to create/update/delete/publish on the same resource — the definition is adequate but thin for a lookup tool in a large multi-tool namespace.

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%, and the description's parameter block is a verbatim restatement of the productId schema description, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the identifier format ('portal-subdomain:product-slug') and requiredness.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve information about a specific product resource.' An agent can tell this is a single-item read of a portal product, distinct from swagger_list_portal_products or swagger_delete_portal_product. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, and 'product resource' is slightly generic, keeping it from 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as swagger_list_portal_products (to find an ID first) or swagger_get_portal (for the parent portal). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the single required parameter.

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