get_product_source

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't confirm safety, permission requirements, or that no side effects occur. It also doesn't describe what 'details' includes or whether pagination or filtering applies.

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, short sentence with no filler, making it easy to parse. It conveys the core action and resource immediately. There is no redundant information, so every word earns its place.

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 get operation with two required IDs and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't state that the product source is uniquely identified by the publisher_id and source_id combination, nor does it mention potential errors or read-only nature. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more context would help, but the tool's simplicity mitigates the need.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both publisher_id and source_id. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is high, this dimension meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'product source' and qualifier 'specific', clearly indicating a single-item retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_product_sources, create_product_source, and delete_product_source by implying a targeted fetch. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the required publisher_id/source_id scope, though this is evident from the schema.

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 that list_product_sources enumerates sources, nor that create/update are for modifications. There is no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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