Catalog 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, which are the core behavioral facts the caller needs about side effects. The description adds edge-value context by naming 'live stock' and flags in the return, but it does not disclose anything like auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 definition is a secure two-sentence structure: the first sentence states the action and key return fields; the second sentence gives a routing decision. Every word earns its place, and the practical guidance moves to the front.

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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return areas well and gives guidance. It does not describe error handling, but with one param and simple semantics this is not a significant gap. Compared to the cursory does-list, this feels complete for the intended use.

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% and product_id is already fully documented with type, format, pattern, and a description. The description adds no new parameter semantics; it merely refers to 'by id', which is already present. Baseline 3 is correct with no redundancy above it.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single product by id') and enumerates what is returned. It distinctively covers the difference between a detail view and a search operation by naming search as the thing to avoid, so the tool can be told apart from catalog_search_products without inspecting either schema.

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 second sentence explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and when not to: it should not be used by re-running search when the product id is already known. This directly references the main alternative (search) and gives a clear decision condition, so an agent can route correctly.

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