teamleader_product_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only restates the tool's purpose ('get details') with no additional behavioral context such as error handling, permissions, or response format. It is a clear read operation, but no non-obvious traits are disclosed.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool, front-loaded with the core action.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description is minimally viable but incomplete: it does not specify what 'details' include or what happens if the product is not found. Since there is no output schema to fill that gap, the description could have added a bit more 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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter as a Product UUID, so baseline is 3. The description's 'by ID' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, making it redundant but not harmful.

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 tool retrieves details for a specific product by ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like teamleader_products_list (list all) and teamleader_product_create/update (mutations). The verb 'Get' and resource 'product' are specific.

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 this tool should be used when a product ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like teamleader_products_list. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, making the usage guidance only implicit.

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