get_record_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, what a null/unknown record returns, what the 'snapshot' date or 'include_off' flag change about the result, or whether missing records error or return empty.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the key concept (source record → product) front-loaded and no wasted words. But the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than purposeful brevity, so it is adequate rather than good.

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?

With three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema explanation needed (one exists), the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent cannot confidently supply snapshot or include_off, or know the failure behavior on an unknown record.

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, yet it only illustrates the record_id format ('fdc:…', 'off:…'). The other two parameters, snapshot (date) and include_off (boolean, default false), get no explanation at all, leaving more than half the parameters semantically opaque.

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 identifies a relationship lookup — given a source record, return the parent product — and gives concrete record_id examples ('fdc:174289', 'off:0…'). However, it is phrased as a noun fragment with no explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from lookups like get_food or get_product_by_barcode, so an agent must guess at boundaries.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many siblings (get_food, get_product_by_barcode, search_foods), nor any precondition or exclusion. The example ID prefixes imply the input comes from a source record, but the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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