get_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, and it discloses that include=itemBoms expands the payload, which is useful. It does not cover failure behavior (unknown ID), whether the include expansion is expensive, or whether results are cached/live.

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?

Two tight sentences, scoping clause front-loaded and the include hint appended. No filler, though the second sentence duplicates a term (itemBoms) that already appears in the schema.

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?

A simple single-resource read tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary. The only real omission is routing guidance versus get_bill_of_materials, which leaves a small ambiguity among siblings.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the full option list for 'include'. The description adds a definition of itemBoms only, leaving category/inventoryLines unelaborated. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific product by ID'), which cleanly separates it from list_products. It also names one concrete capability (itemBoms). It stops short of explicitly disambiguating against sibling BOM tools, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

Gives one useful usage hint (use include=itemBoms for the bill of materials), which is genuine when-to-use guidance for a parameter. However, siblings get_bill_of_materials and compare_product_boms exist, and the description never says when to prefer those over this tool's include flag, nor any prerequisites.

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