Get Product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the response includes variants, images, and inventory, which is useful context about what the tool returns. However, it doesn't go beyond that—no mention of potential errors, rate limits, or other behavioral nuances.

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, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the action and output scope without any wasted words. It is concise 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?

For a simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does and what to expect in the response. There is no output schema, so the mention of variants, images, and inventory partially fills that gap. It lacks guidance on when to use this vs siblings, but that is more of a usage-guideline issue.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the resource details (variants, images, inventory). The schema already explains id, store, and response_format.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific product including variants, images, and inventory.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('product'), and specifies scope ('specific') which distinguishes it from product_list and product_search. The title 'Get Product' reinforces this.

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you need details on a specific product, as opposed to listing or searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives like product_list or product_search, but the phrase 'specific product' provides clear context for when to use it. No exclusions are mentioned.

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