get_product

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 adds meaningful behavioral detail by explaining that a comma-separated list of up to 50 ids is accepted, which goes beyond the simple string schema. It also notes 'Products v2' for version context. It does not discuss errors or permissions, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a brief, focused detail on parameter flexibility and usage context. There is no wordiness, and every sentence contributes value.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, when to use it, and the parameter format. It omits details like error handling or response structure, but these are largely covered by the output schema and the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 parameter schema has no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that product_id can be a single id or a comma-separated list of up to 50 ids, adding critical semantic information about the parameter's format and constraints beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 'Retrieve product(s) by id,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_order or get_inventory by resource, and from list_products by operation type (get by id vs list all).

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 explicitly says 'Use when you already know the id(s),' providing a clear usage condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to select this tool over a list tool.

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