Get Product

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 clear. The description adds useful return-content context (price, availability, sale price, condition, inventory), which is helpful since no output schema exists. It does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits, but these are less critical for a simple read with strong annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but is minimal and does not add notable clutter. The Returns line provides valuable response details without filler.

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 tool with complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the required identifier, explains it is for a single product, and lists key return fields. A minor gap is that it does not clarify how product_id relates to product catalogs or feeds, but this does not block correct selection or invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the response_format enum and default. The description only restates product_id without adding new meaning and does not mention response_format, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema. 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Gets details for a single product.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like meta_list_products, meta_create_product, meta_update_product, and meta_delete_product by emphasizing 'single product' and focusing on retrieval.

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 when to use the tool: when you need details for one specific product by product_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like meta_list_products for browsing multiple products. The usage context is present but left to inference.

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