Get product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the response includes denominations/variants and specifically surfaces the variantId + amount fields relevant to create_order, which is useful beyond the tool name. It doesn't mention errors or auth, but for a simple read-only lookup the key return characteristic is covered.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant words; it leads with the action and resource, then appends the key output detail in a parenthetical. Every element 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential lookup semantics and highlights the output fields that matter for a downstream create_order call. It stops short of full return-format or error details, but the minimal complexity means nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema already fully documents the single id parameter with a description ('giftcardshop product id') and minLength, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description only repeats 'by id' and adds no new semantic detail about the parameter, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('one product') and lookup key ('by id'), immediately distinguishing it from list_brands and search_products. The added detail about denominations/variants further clarifies the exact resource shape.

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 provides clear context: use this to retrieve a single product by id, and the output supplies variantId and amount needed for create_order. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer search_products, but the direct-lookup framing makes the intended usage clear.

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