Get product detail

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a non-obvious behavior: the tool returns the current live price, and it implies freshness by instructing to call right before create_order. It doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or error handling, but 'fetches' strongly implies a safe read operation. This is adequate coverage for a simple get tool.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action ('Fetches one product by id'), then adds the key behavioral detail (live price) and the usage hint (call before create_order). Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (product with live price) and when to call it. It also integrates with sibling tools by referencing search_catalog, get_category, and create_order. It doesn't describe the return structure or error behavior, but those are often acceptable to leave to the schema or inference for such a simple tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that productId is an identifier obtained from search_catalog / get_category, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and minLength. This tells the agent where to source a valid id, which is valuable. It doesn't specify format nuances, but the schema already provides type and length constraints.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Fetches one product by id' and includes a key differentiator: 'including its current live price'. It also names the source tools (search_catalog / get_category) for the id, which helps distinguish it from search and category listing siblings. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_premium_product, the context of 'create_order' and 'product' rather than 'premium product' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'always call this right before create_order to get the exact denomination.' It also states where the id comes from (search_catalog / get_category), telling the agent how to obtain a valid parameter. This is clear and actionable, though it doesn't mention premium alternatives, the regular-order context is sufficient.

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