catalog_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. It does explain the output contents (price, live stock, buy steps), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. For a simple product lookup the lack of explicit safety notes is a minor gap, keeping this at a moderate score.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output, immediately followed by the ID format and a pointer to the sibling. There is zero redundancy or fluff; every word contributes to clarity.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, the parameter format, and how to obtain valid inputs. It does not address failure modes or error handling, but these are not critical for a straightforward retrieval tool, so it is fairly complete.

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 schema defines the 'id' parameter with a basic example, but the description adds significant meaning by explaining the ID format ('nft-listing:nft_8, nft-pool:<pool_id> or commodity:TOMATO') and reinforcing the source (catalog_browse). This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent concrete format expectations, so it adds real value.

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 specific verb ('retrieve'), resource ('product from the catalog by id'), and delivers concrete output (price, live stock, exact steps to buy). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling catalog_browse by positioning itself as the detail lookup after listing, so an agent can clearly tell them apart.

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?

It directly instructs the agent to list products with catalog_browse to obtain IDs, thereby defining the natural workflow and the alternative tool. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with a named sibling, leaving no ambiguity about when to call this tool vs. the listing tool.

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