get_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, but the description adds significant behavioral context: 'nothing in the catalogue changes and nobody is charged,' 'A blank product_id is rejected before any request is made,' and the format warning that '`price` is a string of whole IQD; parse it before doing arithmetic.' This goes well beyond the structured hints and helps the agent anticipate edge cases.

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 well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then usage, exclusions (what's NOT returned), a critical data-format caveat, read-only reassurance, and a cross-tool clarification. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 complexity is low (one parameter), the description is nevertheless thorough. It covers the full field set returned (and what is omitted), the alternative for richer data, the ID source, and a payment-link disambiguation. An output schema exists, so return format is already defined, but the description adds the 'NOT returned' list, which is very helpful. No meaningful context is missing.

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% and the param description already explains the ID is Wayl's own ID, not name/slug/URL. The tool description adds value by tying the ID source to `list_products` or a product URL, and by confirming no lookup by name is possible. This reinforces and slightly extends the schema without redundancy, though the core meaning is already present in the schema.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Fetch one product's basic details by ID.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like `list_products` and `get_payment_link` by stating it's for a single product and only basic details. No ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use it when you already have the ID from `list_products` or a product URL — there is no lookup by name or slug.' It also names an alternative for extended fields: 'for those, page `list_products` and filter by id.' Plus it clarifies the tool is unrelated to payment links, guiding against misuse.

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