vt_get_product

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-mutating call. The description adds useful context by listing what data is returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as payload size, rate limits, or error semantics. This is acceptable given the annotations but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the included data fields. There is no filler, repetition, or vague language; every word contributes value.

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 lookup with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sets adequate expectations by enumerating key fields returned. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by this enumeration, and response shape variability is covered in the view parameter schema. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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%, with all three parameters (product_code, view, campaign_value) documented in detail. The tool description reinforces that product_code is the lookup key but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one Viator product by product code'), and enumerates the returned data fields (description, inclusions/exclusions, itinerary, product options, cancellation policy, booking URL, review summary). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like vt_search_products and vt_get_attraction without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'by product code' clearly signals that callers should already have the identifier, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for search or attraction lookups), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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