Get Product by ID

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses that includeEnrichedData=true triggers web scraping ('scrapes alko.fi') and impacts performance ('slower'). This provides practical behavioral insights not captured in annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second explains the optional parameter with its benefits and trade-offs. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, parameter usage, and behavioral nuances. However, without an output schema, it could briefly hint at the return structure (e.g., 'detailed product info' is vague) to achieve full completeness.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds some semantic context for includeEnrichedData (e.g., 'taste profile, food pairings, serving tips'), but this largely overlaps with the schema's description. No new parameter details are introduced beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed product info'), specifies the key identifier ('by Alko product ID'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'search_products' by focusing on single-item lookup rather than search. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the optional parameter (includeEnrichedData=true for taste profiles, food pairings, etc.), including a performance trade-off ('slower, scrapes alko.fi'). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_products' or 'get_recommendations', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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