Get a NEON data product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds useful behavioral context: it explains that change logs are paged and availability rows can be per-site, and that sections are opt-in. It also mentions pagination via limit/offset implied by 'paged'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The main capability is stated first, followed by optional features and a clear pointer to next steps. Every clause contributes information, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, how to specify the product, opt-in sections, pagination behavior, and a pointer to related tools. The output schema presumably details the return structure, so the description need not repeat that. No critical information for calling it correctly is missing.

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 50% (4 of 8 params have descriptions). The description adds meaning for the less-documented parameters: it mentions pagination for change_logs and availability (giving context to limit/offset), and explains that include[] controls opt-in sections. It also clarifies that product accepts a code or name. This compensates for the schema gaps and adds value beyond the schema.

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 that the tool retrieves a single data product with a specific set of fields (codes, name, team, status, themes, keywords, releases with DOIs, availability summary) and that opt-in sections can add more detail. It distinguishes from sibling tools like neon_get_availability (per-site availability) and neon_get_citation by explicitly pointing to them as follow-ups.

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 says it accepts a product code or name and suggests next steps (call neon_get_availability or neon_get_citation), implying this is for fetching a specific product rather than searching or listing. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., when to use neon_search_products), but the 'one data product' phrasing and sibling names provide enough context. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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