get_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'complete' and 'normalized,' which are behavioral traits, but does not disclose what happens if the product is not found, whether the operation is read-only, or any potential side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent of safety or error behavior.

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 sentence with the verb front-loaded. It is concise, clear, and contains no fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It states the core action and object, and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks usage context, especially regarding sibling tools, and provides no parameter details, leaving gaps for an agent to select it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain 'product_id' at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory only by convention; no format, usage, or semantics are provided. The description adds no value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action (Return) and the resource (one complete normalized supplement label record), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_products or compare_products. It specifies the scope (single record) and the type of data (supplement label), making the tool's purpose 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for fetching a specific product by ID, nor does it point to search_products for discovery or compare_products for comparison. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative naming.

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