Get product details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly reinforces 'Read-only' without needing to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing the unknown-code failure mode ('product not found') and by noting that the result returns the numeric good_id needed for add_to_cart.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by when to use it and how the code maps to other tools. Every sentence carries actionable information with no repetition or 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, when to call it, where the code comes from, how the result feeds add_to_cart, and the error case. Little is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the code is the `code` field of a search_products card and specifically the end of its /p/<code> URL. It also clarifies the distinction from the numeric good_id consumed by add_to_cart, which the schema alone does not explain.

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?

States a specific verb and resource, then enumerates exactly what the result contains: sizes, fabrics, per-variant prices, and the design's 'about' text. It is clearly distinguishable from search_products, which returns only cards, and from add_to_cart, which is the downstream action.

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?

Explicitly says to call it before add_to_cart when the human hasn't picked a size yet or may want another fabric, and explains why a search card is insufficient. It also names search_products as the source of the code and explains how add_to_cart uses the returned good_id.

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