get_developer_product

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Get the full details'—implying a read-only, safe operation—but does not specify what 'full details' includes, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior. The absence of output schema leaves the response structure ambiguous.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose without extraneous words, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 getter with two fully-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It could be improved by hinting at the expected response fields (e.g., 'including name, price, etc.'), but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and types; it merely restates them ('by its ID within a universe'). No format, constraints, or usage hints are provided.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'a single developer product', and the scope 'by its ID within a universe'. It effectively distinguishes from list_developer_products (which returns multiple) and game pass tools (different resource type).

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 usage context is implied—use when you have a specific product ID and universe ID to retrieve details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for a list of products or when creating/updating) nor any mention of alternatives such as list_developer_products or update_developer_product. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced.

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