vtex_get_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste—'Get product details by ID'—front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, 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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain return values or behavioral context, which is needed since annotations are absent. However, for a basic read operation, it's just enough to avoid a lower score, aligning with a minimum viable description.

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%, with the single parameter 'productId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is used for lookup, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting 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 action ('Get') and resource ('product details'), specifying it's by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like vtex_list_products (list all) and vtex_get_product_by_identifier (alternative lookup method), though not explicitly. However, it's not fully specific about what 'details' includes, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vtex_get_product_by_identifier or vtex_search_products is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific product by ID, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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