invoiceninja_get_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only 'with all details', which vaguely signals a full-detail return but says nothing about response_format behavior or the interaction with fields/include.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the scope constraint ('one product') leads. It is arguably too terse to be maximally useful, keeping it below 5.

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 read-only getter with full annotations the safety story is complete, but with no output schema the description should hint at what 'all details' returns or how markdown vs json output differs. As written it is adequate but leaves that gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so id, fields, include and response_format are already documented. The description's 'by its hashed id' merely restates the id parameter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get one product') and narrows scope to a single record by hashed id, distinguishing it from invoiceninja_list_products. It does not explicitly name the sibling it pairs with, so it falls short of a 5.

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 (fetch a product when you have its id) but never states when to prefer this over list_products or search, nor any prerequisites. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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