get_product_options

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real domain semantics beyond the schema: addon groups require exactly one option id, toppings are optional, max_in_group caps selection, and prices are per-item surcharges rather than totals.

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 tight sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the selection rules. The opening fragment is telegraphic ('Choices for a product') but the rest compensates efficiently.

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 return structure needn't be spelled out, yet the description adds valuable interpretation rules (one option id per addon group, max_in_group, surcharge pricing). For a single-parameter read tool this covers what an agent needs before calling.

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 0% for the single product_id parameter, but the description is written around 'a product' and so implicitly ties the argument to the product whose options are returned. The parameter name is self-evident, but no explicit syntax, format, or sourcing guidance is added, so it does the minimum.

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 names the resource ('Choices for a product') and the follow-on sentences make clear it returns selectable addon/topping options, so an agent can tell what it gets back. However, it lacks an explicit verb and never differentiates itself from siblings like get_menu or search_menu, which also surface product-related data.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus get_menu, search_menu, or add_to_cart. The rules given ('each addon group needs exactly one option id', 'respect max_in_group') govern how to interpret the result, not when to reach for this tool. Usage is only weakly implied.

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