Get One Time Product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation: 'Get details'. It does not disclose side effects, authentication expectations, error behavior, read-only guarantees, or any constraints beyond the basic action. The tool seems safe to call, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name and title.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is structured well for quick parsing, though it is too minimal to earn a 5 because it provides no additional orienting details.

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?

The tool has only two required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the complete lack of usage guidance and annotations leaves the agent without context for navigating among many similar one-time-product and subscription tools.

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 fully documents both parameters, product_id and package_name, so the schema covers parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters should be used or combined, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a specific one-time product'), making the tool's basic purpose easy to understand. The word 'specific' helps distinguish it from list operations, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate it from sibling getter tools like get_in_app_product or batch_get_one_time_products.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_one_time_products or batch_get_one_time_products. It does not state prerequisites, such as needing to obtain product_id from a list call first, or exclusions like when a batch get would be more appropriate.

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