get_product_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the output contents but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the product is not found, any permission requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. The word 'Get' implies read-only, but it is not explicit.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and result, with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though it could briefly mention the store_id parameter to improve completeness without adding much length.

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 lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose and some return fields, but omits clarification on why store_id is needed, the semantic difference from search tools, and any error/edge-case behavior. It is barely adequate for an agent to call it correctly without additional assumptions.

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 explain both parameters. It explains 'PLU' as the product identifier, but does not mention 'store_id' at all, nor explain its purpose or required format. This leaves an entire required parameter undocumented.

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 ('product details'), and a specific lookup key ('by PLU'), and lists the data returned (ingredients, calories, nutrients, URL). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_products or find_products, which are for finding by query rather than direct lookup.

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 tool is used when you have a PLU (product code) to retrieve details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_products or find_products, nor does it mention when not to use it. The 'by PLU' hint gives context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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