Get Product

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat those. It adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the return content (SKU, name, description, pricing, packing settings, custom fields, flags) and the response_format behavior (markdown vs json). This goes beyond the structured fields.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear purpose sentence followed by labeled Args and Returns sections. Every line serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 two-parameter get tool with annotations and a complete schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the return value and parameter behavior, and the schema covers required fields and enums. No significant gaps remain.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches both parameters: it cross-references the identifier's origin (from logiwa_list_products) and clarifies that response_format defaults to markdown for a human-readable summary versus json for the full structured payload. This adds value over the schema descriptions.

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 the tool gets the full detail of a single product by UUID, with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('product'), and scope ('single product by its Logiwa identifier'). This distinguishes it from siblings like logiwa_list_products (which lists many) and logiwa_get_shipment_order (a different entity).

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 implies the appropriate usage context by specifying that the identifier comes from logiwa_list_products items[].identifier, guiding the user to first list products. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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