Products Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real operational context beyond them: the required OAuth scope 'read_products', the underlying GET /products/{id} endpoint, and the pinned API version 2025-03 — all relevant to whether a call will be authorized and which schema shape to expect.

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?

Four short lines: the payload scope is front-loaded, followed by endpoint, scope, and version metadata. Every line carries information an agent can act on; the HTTP line is mildly redundant with the tool name but still useful for scope/endpoint reasoning.

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 read-only single-resource getter with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (variants, images, categories, attributes) and what auth scope is needed. The remaining gap — no mention of error behavior for missing or deleted products or of how large the embedded collections can be — is 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 100% and all three parameters (id, fields, response_format) are documented in the schema with examples and an enum. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one product by ID') and enumerates the included sub-resources (variants, images, categories, attributes), which tells an agent what payload to expect. It does not explicitly contrast with the two nearest siblings, products_list and products_get_by_sku, but the singular-by-ID framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 context is implied by 'by ID' versus the list/SKU siblings, but the description never says when to prefer this over tiendanube_products_get_by_sku or tiendanube_variants_get, nor does it mention behavior on an unknown ID. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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