Get Product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no behavior for unknown/missing IDs, no mention of what fields are returned or whether deactivated products are retrievable.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is proportionate for a single-parameter lookup. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 trivial single-ID read with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. It nevertheless omits the one thing structured data cannot convey: what happens when the ID does not exist or refers to a deactivated product.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Object ID' with numeric bounds, so the schema carries the weight. 'By ID' in the description merely echoes the parameter name without adding format or example detail; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (a single product) plus the lookup key (ID), so the agent understands exactly what entity is fetched. It does not distinguish itself from list_products or search_client-style alternatives, but the 'single' qualifier does implicitly separate it from the list sibling.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to list_products for browsing or to the other product tools. Usage must be inferred purely from the name and 'by ID' phrasing.

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