market_get_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns location-specific branch offers, promotional fields, and indexTime, and it explicitly warns that 'Barcode wire type is unverified.' No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The core lookup mechanism is front-loaded, followed by return-value highlights and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields exhaustively. It covers the essential lookup mode, location-specific behavior, and a data-quality caveat. It could be more complete by naming sibling tools for routing, but it is sufficient for a read-only, idempotent lookup.

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 50%, with depots, distance, latitude, and longitude already described. The description adds meaning for identity ('opaque string identity') and reinforces identityType=id, but it does not clarify size or pages. Those are constrained to constants, so the gap is minor, but the description only partially compensates for the schema's missing parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('product'), and a precise lookup mode ('opaque string identity with identityType=id'). It clearly distinguishes this from broader search tools like market_search_products, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 description implies the tool should be used when you have an opaque string identity and identityType=id, and it notes location-specific output. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over market_search_products, market_find_similar_products, or market_compare_product_offers, nor does it state exclusions.

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