Get product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core operation and does not mention error behavior (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, response format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and is efficient. However, the phrase 'using the Horoshop API' is redundant given the tool name and adds no value, preventing a perfect score.

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 get-by-id tool, the description provides the essential purpose, but with no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, it leaves gaps around return shape, error cases, and prerequisites. It is minimally viable for a low-complexity tool but not fully complete.

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 schema shows a single parameter, product_id, with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'by id' adds a minimal level of meaning by confirming that product_id is the identifier, but it does not explain accepted formats, constraints, or how to handle the number/string union. It partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('Returns'), the resource ('a product'), and the key qualifier ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like horoshop_list_products (which lists products) and horoshop_get_order (which fetches an order).

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 the tool should be used when a specific product_id is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites like authentication is given.

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