Get product

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add one genuinely useful non-schema behavior — long texts are truncated to max_chars — but says nothing about the default limit, what truncation looks like in the response, or what happens if the id does not exist.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the truncation caveat follows immediately after the field list it qualifies. Opening with a bare noun list rather than a verb makes it read slightly like a field caption, which keeps it from a 5.

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 two-parameter read-only fetch with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the essentials are present: which product, which fields, and the truncation caveat that would otherwise surprise an agent. Remaining gaps (not-found behavior, default max_chars) are minor.

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, and it only partly does: it explains that max_chars bounds long text fields, which is the one non-obvious parameter. The id parameter is never mentioned, and the 200–50000 bounds and default for max_chars are left entirely to the 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 names the exact resource ('one product') and enumerates the fields returned (name, visibility, short description, description), which lets an agent distinguish it from shoptet_list_products. The verb is only implicit — it never says 'retrieve' or 'get' — but 'of one product' makes the singular-fetch semantics unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one product' signals single-record lookup versus the sibling list_products, but no alternative is named and no condition for choosing between them is given. There is also no guidance on when max_chars should be raised or lowered.

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