product_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, filtering behavior (e.g., AND/OR logic for multiple parameters), or the effect of the 'detail' parameter. This leaves significant ambiguity for the AI agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely terse and could include additional context without becoming verbose. A score of 4 reflects efficient conciseness that sacrifices some helpful detail.

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 are covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance and does not explain how parameters like 'limit' and 'detail' affect retrieval. Given the tool's flexibility (5 optional parameters), the description is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names and their schema descriptions. It does not clarify how parameters interact (e.g., 'ids' vs 'kod' vs 'nazev') or provide usage examples.

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 'Get products (cenik) from AbraFlexi' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's action and domain. The name 'product_get' aligns with the description and distinguishes it from sibling tools like product_create, product_delete, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the presence of multiple similar 'get' tools (e.g., contact_get, evidence_get), the description offers no selection criteria.

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