Get one Harpd AI product

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already provided, the description adds useful non-obvious behavior: missing products return a structured found:false result rather than an error, and rankPoints are explicitly de-mystified as promotional, not editorial quality. These disclosures go beyond annotations and meaningfully shape how an agent interprets results.

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 three sentences with no filler: it states the primary use, the return contents, the not-found behavior, and a critical note about rankPoints. All sentences earn their place, though the provenance list is slightly dense and could be simplified.

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?

The description covers return fields, not-found behavior, and rankPoints, but it never states that at least one of id/slug/name must be supplied (the schema marks all as optional, yet the tool is unusable with zero parameters). This is a critical operational gap. The description also omits match semantics for 'name', though those appear in the schema, so the gap is partially mitigated.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, and the tool description only restates that lookup is by id, slug, or name. It adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Look up') and a specific resource ('a single product... by id, slug or name'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_products and get_products. The title and description both emphasize the singular-product scope, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 is for single-product lookups by identifier, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over search_products or get_products. There are no exclusions or alternative routing instructions, so the agent must infer from the sibling names rather than being told.

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