get_data_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. 'Laden' implies a read-only operation, which is consistent with a metadata retrieval tool. However, it doesn't disclose whether it returns data content (vs just metadata), whether access is required, or what happens for non-existent products. The relative safety of a read operation limits the harm, but specifics about return behavior are missing.

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 concise sentence in German that efficiently enumerates the four metadata categories loaded (Metadaten, Ownership, Zertifizierung, Governance). No wasted words. Could arguably include more, but for a fetch-by-ID tool the length is appropriate.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return values are externally documented and needn't be detailed in the description. The single-parameter tool is simple. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description could compensate more—for instance by explaining what each metadata category (Ownership, Certification, Governance) means and how this differs from preview_data_product. Adequate but with gaps for a governance-rich tool.

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% for the product_id parameter, and the description provides no elaboration on what product_id is, where to obtain it, or its format. The description mentions 'eines Datenprodukts' (of a data product) which loosely ties to the parameter, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare 'Product Id' title. The parameter would benefit from guidance on source or format.

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 is in German and states it loads 'metadata, ownership, certification and governance' of a data product. The verb 'laden' (load/retrieve) plus the specific resource (data product) makes the purpose clear, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like search_data_products (search) and preview_data_product (preview data content). Slightly less strong because it doesn't explicitly contrast with the lineage tool (get_product_lineage) which might overlap in the governance domain.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 16 siblings including search_data_products, preview_data_product, and get_product_lineage, there's ambiguity about when to fetch full product metadata vs search vs preview. The description implies 'when you need full metadata including governance details' but never states this explicitly or names alternatives to exclude.

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