get_product_source_target

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get details') but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), authentication requirements, or what fields are included in 'details'. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for more transparency.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, containing exactly the essential information.

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 two required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not specify what 'details' includes or what the response looks like, nor any edge cases. Given the low complexity, this is a reasonable minimum, but additional context about response structure or error handling would improve completeness.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Publisher ID' and 'Source target ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between publisher_id and source_target_id or how they form a composite key. With such high schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool gets details of a specific product source target, using the verb 'get' and the resource 'product source target'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_product_source_targets, create_product_source_target, update_product_source_target, and delete_product_source_target. The word 'specific' signals a single-object lookup.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_product_source_targets for multiple records or get_product_source for a different resource. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references are given. The need for both publisher_id and source_target_id is implied only by the schema, not by the description.

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