get_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The explicit 'GET' method indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or response contents, so transparency is partial.

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 sentence that includes the tool's name, action, and endpoint. There is no redundant text or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or any notable behaviors. It only states the HTTP endpoint and action, omitting response shape, error handling, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent underinformed about the result.

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% since both parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing product_id in the URL path, clarifying it is a path parameter, but it says nothing about the 'version' parameter, leaving its purpose solely to the schema description.

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 '取得商品' (get product) clearly identifies the specific resource and action, and the endpoint '/v1/products/{product_id}' reinforces that it retrieves a single product by ID. It is distinct from sibling list tools like list_products, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it loses one point.

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_products or get_item. The only implicit usage context is that the path includes a product_id, implying single-product retrieval, but there are no explicit when/when-not statements or alternative tool references.

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