get_product_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full technical sheet and detailed stock per active warehouse, and mentions the CON_CTRL_ALM flag. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the article doesn't exist. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter explanations. It's two sentences plus an Args block, with no wasted words. The structure is clear and scannable.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably covered there. The description covers the main purpose and parameters. However, given the sibling tools like get_stock_by_warehouse and get_warehouse_summary, the description could be more explicit about how this tool differs (e.g., it returns the full technical sheet plus stock, not just stock). Also, no mention of error cases or optional empresa behavior. Adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains cve_art as 'Clave del artículo' and empresa as 'Clave de empresa (opcional)', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles. However, it doesn't provide format details, examples, or clarify how empresa affects the result (e.g., filtering warehouses). This is adequate but not rich.

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 retrieves the complete technical sheet of an article, including multialmacén flag and detailed stock per active warehouse. It uses a specific verb ('Obtiene') and resource ('ficha técnica completa de un artículo'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_stock_by_warehouse or get_warehouse_summary, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 usage context: it's for fetching full product detail with stock per warehouse. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stock_by_warehouse or get_warehouse_summary, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit.

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