get_product_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns detailed information, but doesn't describe what 'detailed' includes, potential errors (e.g., invalid product IDs), performance traits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Returns'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a detail-retrieval tool. It doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields, structure), error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with one parameter but no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'productId' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of a 'specific product' tied to the ID. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without extra value from the description.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('detailed information about a specific product'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_products' (which likely returns a list rather than details for one product), preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_products' (for lists) or other detail tools (e.g., 'get_company_detail'). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a product ID from another source, which is essential for effective tool selection.

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