beaconed_products_get

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

The description carries the full behavioral burden because no annotations are provided. It communicates read-only behavior through 'GET' and 'fetch', which is transparent for a retrieval endpoint, but it does not disclose potential response size, auth requirements, or whether the score history is paginated.

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 front-loads the endpoint method and path, then summarizes the response contents. No filler or redundant wording.

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 simple one-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the resource and expected payload categories. It does not specify the exact response shape or edge cases, but the call itself is fully specified by the schema.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter ('id' as Product UUID) with 100% coverage. The description adds the path template '/products/{id}', confirming it is a path parameter, but offers no additional semantic guidance 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?

The description opens with the HTTP verb and resource path, then states the specific action 'fetch full product detail' and enumerates the included content. This clearly identifies the tool as a single-product detail retrieval, distinct in kind from list products. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling endpoints like beaconed_products_scores or beaconed_products_optimizations, so it relies on the 'full detail' qualifier for differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to call this tool versus the many siblings, such as beaconed_products_scores or beaconed_products_optimizations. The phrase 'full product detail' implies a one-stop retrieval, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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