vtex_get_product_by_identifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get product') and directly specifies the search criteria, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It clearly states what the tool does but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information, which could hinder an agent in invoking it correctly without additional context.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters, including an enum for 'field'. The description adds minimal value by listing the field types (ID, EAN, Reference ID, SKU), which aligns with the enum but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('product'), and specifies the search methods ('by ID, EAN, Reference ID, or SKU'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vtex_get_product' or 'vtex_search_products', which could provide similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'vtex_get_product' (which might fetch by a single ID) or 'vtex_search_products' (which might support broader queries), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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