Get Product Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (catalog name, product count, vertical, business info, store settings), but doesn't address error behavior, rate limits, or alternate outcomes. Given annotations carry the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact, using a docstring format with Args and Returns sections. The core purpose sentence is front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists with the schema (catalog_id restated), but the overall structure is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 read-only retrieval tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no nested objects, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. The return fields are enumerated, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the Returns clause. No critical information needed for a correct call 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 description coverage is 100%, so both catalog_id and response_format are already documented in the structured schema. The description restates catalog_id but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. The 'Returns' clause helps clarify what the response contains, but parameter semantics are largely redundant with the schema — appropriate for the 100% coverage baseline.

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 'Gets details for a single product catalog' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. The name and title already convey the resource, but the description adds the 'single' qualifier that distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_list_product_catalogs. It could more explicitly name the list/get siblings for differentiation, but purpose is 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a closely related sibling, meta_list_product_catalogs, but the description never mentions it or notes when a single catalog lookup is appropriate. No exclusions or context is provided beyond the operational mechanics.

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