beel_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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the endpoint and clarifies that the company is identified by NIF, but it does not describe response structure, error behavior, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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 extremely compact, consisting of two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and adds a technical endpoint reference that is useful for implementation. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 read-only operation with 2 parameters, the description is largely sufficient. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at what 'details' includes (e.g., fields, nested objects), but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of readOnlyHint, this is a minor omission. The description could be more explicit about response format but is not critically incomplete.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description only echoes the endpoint and mentions 'NIF' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Since the schema already explains the parameters adequately, the description adds little value here.

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 clear action ('Retrieves the details of a product') and identifies the resource (a product of a specific company). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from listing tools by focusing on a single product. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the broader `beel_get_by_id` sibling, so it misses full sibling discrimination.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `beel_list_products` or `beel_get_by_id`. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on conditions or exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer that it is for fetching a specific product's details.

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