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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no return shape, no not-found/error behavior for an invalid ID, no permission or rate-limit context. "(Holded API v2)" adds only a versioning hint.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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 single-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. Missing is anything about what a successful response contains or how a bad ID is reported, which an agent calling blind would want.

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%, so the single parameter is structurally documented, and the description merely restates that lookup is by ID. The schema's own description ("Product ID") is tautological, so neither source clarifies format (numeric vs. string, ID source); baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("product") scoped to a single record by ID, which implicitly separates it from list_products. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the list-vs-get split, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

"By ID" implies the precondition (a known productId) and implies list_products is the path for discovery, but neither the alternative nor any exclusion is stated. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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