Get product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the returned-field summary, which the output schema already carries; it discloses nothing extra about cache behavior, errors on unknown ids, or cross-workspace access.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then names the output fields. There is no filler, hedging, or repetition.

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 and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description needn't explain return values, and it does briefly note what comes back. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance against the many sibling product/checkout tools, which is minor here.

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 100% and both parameters (product_id, response_format) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the token/id form of product_id but adds no semantics, such as what happens if the id belongs to another workspace, beyond what the schema provides.

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?

'Fetch one product by its p_… token or id' names a specific verb (fetch), resource (product), and the lookup key, and it enumerates the salient returned fields (price, status, public page url). It clearly reads as a single-item retrieval, implicitly contrasting with jami_list_products, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'by its p_… token or id' implies the caller must already hold a product identifier, which hints at usage after a list/search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as jami_list_products for browsing, and no exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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