Get a Woolworths product

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

Despite readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: allergens/ingredients are often not published, 'notStated' means absence of data rather than safety, 'purchasingUnit' maps to cart tool requirements, and prices are per delivery location. These details materially change how an agent should use the result and are not available from annotations or schema.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational value: the first sentence names the resource and payload, and the following sentences address the non-obvious caveats that an agent must know before presenting results. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent can expect. It lists the returned fields and clarifies the ambiguous ones: unit_price may be absent, purchasingUnit and canBuyByWeight affect downstream cart behavior, allergen/ingredient statuses require careful interpretation, and location affects price/availability. This is sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 is fully covered at 100% and already documents the single 'sku' parameter with an example. The description's mention of 'by SKU' reinforces this but adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Fetch one product by SKU' — and enumerates the exact data fields returned. This clearly distinguishes get_product from search-oriented siblings like search_products and from get_product_label, which is mentioned as a packaging-reading alternative.

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 explicit routing guidance: use get_product_label when packaging-level allergen information is needed, and use get_location/set_location because prices and availability are location-dependent. It also warns against treating 'notStated' as allergy assurance, which functions as a clear when-not-to-interpret instruction.

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