product_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that products are cenik (price-list) entries and belong to the specific company the server is bound to. However, it does not disclose default retrieval behavior (e.g., what happens when no ids/kod/nazev are given) or pagination details, though the schema partially covers this.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Get products') and uses the second sentence to provide essential scoping and semantic clarification without redundancy.

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 getter with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers the most important contextual details: what the resource is, its domain meaning, and its scope. The only minor gap is explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the generic evidence_get, but the naming and 'price-list entry' framing largely resolve that.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but given the thorough schema descriptions, no extra compensation is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get products (cenik) from AbraFlexi.' It also clarifies the domain meaning ('price-list entries') and scopes the data to the bound company, which distinguishes it clearly from generic siblings like evidence_get and from mutation tools like product_create.

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 implies usage by declaring it retrieves products and scoping them to the bound company, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus evidence_get or product-related mutations. The reference to server_info gives some context, but no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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