get_store_product

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds behavioral context: 'Authenticated via API key', 'Max 10 concurrent requests', and 'Read-only, safe to retry'. These details are not present in the annotations. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then usage guidance, authentication, args, and returns. It is concise but the 'Args:' section is somewhat verbose, though necessary due to schema omissions. Overall, well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return format is defined elsewhere), the description provides sufficient context: it mentions key fields like title, variants, images, pricing, and explains the return includes a variants array. Authentication, rate limits, and parameter sourcing are covered. No major gaps given the tool's complexity and available structured data.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: store_id (obtain from list_ecommerce_stores), product_id (obtain from list_store_products), and account (optional, with guidance on configuration). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Retrieve a single product from a store with its variants and details.' It specifies what the tool returns (title, variants, images, pricing) and distinguishes it from sibling 'list_store_products' by noting that the latter is for browsing and discovering product_ids.

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 guidance on when to use the tool ('Use to inspect a product's title, variants, images, and pricing') and mentions the alternative 'list_store_products' for browsing. It also covers authentication and rate limits, though it does not exhaustively exclude all sibling tools for specific use cases.

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