product_get

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior; the description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds the detail about the price mode dependency. It also reveals the ?include= parameter syntax to expand data, which is not in the schema, providing additional transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main action and key fields. It is concise and to the point, with no wasted words. The optional include syntax could be split into a separate note but does not harm readability.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (variants, variant_types, translations) and the price mode nuance. It does not cover error cases or edge cases, but the core behavior is clearly communicated, making it sufficient for most use cases.

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?

Both parameters (site, product_id) have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much, but it also doesn't elaborate on them. The mention of the ?include= parameter is extra but not part of the schema, which could confuse. Overall, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameters.

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 the tool retrieves full product details by ID, listing specific included fields (variants, variant_types, translations). It gives a clear verb-resource pair ('get product'), but does not explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' tools like product_update or product_create, which is acceptable for a read-only retrieval tool.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to call ecommerce_settings_get to determine price entry mode before using price fields, and advises using effective_price for customer-facing pricing. Does not mention when to avoid using this tool, but as a read-only operation, the guidance is sufficient.

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