Get a master product and channel mappings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the nuance of returning the 'canonical' product and per-channel identifiers, providing data-context beyond the safety profile. No contradictions.

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, focused sentence that starts with the verb 'Read' and contains no 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 tool with a clear output schema and robust safety annotations, the description sufficiently states the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly reference the sku parameter, but the schema and title fill that gap, so completeness is strong.

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's single parameter 'sku' has no description (0% coverage). The description fails to mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that 'sku' identifies the product. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'canonical product' with 'per-channel external identifiers', clearly distinguishing it from mutation siblings like product_update, product_stop, product_publish, product_resume, and product_delete.

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly name alternatives, its read-only nature and the presence of mutation-oriented sibling tools make the usage context clear. It doesn't provide exclusions or when-not guidance, but the role as the getter is evident.

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