get_product_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the returned fields (images, stock, brand, etc.) and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, which is transparent for a simple retrieval tool. It does not discuss edge cases or side effects, but for a non-mutating getter this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the key return contents without extra filler. Every phrase earns its place, and it is immediately scannable and understandable.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, a required productId and an optional lang, and no output schema exists. The description adequately covers the main return fields, while the schema covers parameter details. It is complete enough for an agent to know the tool's scope, though it could optionally mention dynamic behavior like language-specific names.

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%, with both productId and lang fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it lists outputs but does not explain parameter usage or format beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'full product details' and enumerates concrete contents: images, inventory stock, brand, category, and pricing. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_products (search vs. details) and update_product_stock (update vs. read).

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 implies usage when a product's detailed information is needed, likely by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. It mentions no exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving guidance at an implied level rather than explicit.

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