olist_produto_obter

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 that the tool 'obter' (gets) a product, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. The documentation link is referenced but not inline, so the agent is left without critical behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: one short phrase identifying the operation, the API version, and a documentation link. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Obter Produto') and contains no fluff or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

Despite the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., product details) or provide any direct context about the response. The documentation link is helpful but not self-contained, and the agent would need external access to understand the full behavior. This is insufficient for a get operation that needs to be understood without an output schema.

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 already describes the sole parameter 'id' with a clear Portuguese description ('Número de identificação do produto na Olist'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Obter Produto' (Get Product), identifying a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like olist_produtos_pesquisa (search), olist_produto_incluir (create), and olist_produto_obter_estoque (get stock). However, it relies on the tool name to convey the full action and does not explicitly mention fetching by ID or the response payload, so it is clear but not fully elaborated.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for fetching a single product by ID, nor does it contrast with olist_produtos_pesquisa for searching. The only context is the endpoint name and a documentation link, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the schema and sibling tool names.

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