get_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return structure ({ product, fetchedAt, fromCache }), the contents of product (price, brand, etc.), and data freshness (fetchedAt, fromCache). It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only operation this is acceptable.

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 two sentences long plus a brief list of return fields, with no wasted words. The most critical information (what the tool does) appears first, and subsequent details are efficiently structured.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully covers the return object's shape and semantics. It explains how to obtain input IDs, what the tool does, and how to interpret results. For a two-parameter read tool, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by explaining where to get IDs ('Obtain product IDs from search_products') but does not significantly extend the schema's own parameter explanations. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Fetch full product details') and clearly identifies the scope ('specific chain + product ID pair'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is used after search_products and lists alternative fields (price, brand, etc.) that differentiate it from other tools.

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 states explicit use cases ('drilling into a search result', 'get details for this Migros product') and advises obtaining IDs from search_products. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context signals and sibling names imply alternatives (e.g., find_stock for inventory).

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