Get product details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, setting a safety profile. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the data source (JSON-LD schema) and a stability claim ('values are accurate and stable'), plus the spec-table truncation detail (up to 30 rows). No contradiction with 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 dense but well-organized: purpose and parameter first, then usage guidance, then alternatives, then source. Every sentence earns its place; it is longer than typical but efficient given the range of alternatives it covers. It could be slightly trimmed, but the structure is logical.

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-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage sequence, alternative routing, and data-source reliability. Everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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 the schema already fully documents the `code` parameter. The description adds meaning by reinforcing the distinction from the numeric id and providing a concrete example ('WEXOA002B0'), which is extra clarification that helps an agent avoid a common mistake.

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 specific verb ('Fetch details') for a single product by its Alza code, and distinguishes it from the search tool by noting it is for one product. It enumerates the data fields returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from siblings like search_products and get_product_reviews.

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 explicitly provides usage context ('Use after search_products to compare shortlisted candidates in depth'), and names the exact alternatives for other needs ('For reviews use get_product_reviews; for the complete spec sheet use mobile_read with operation=router_product'). This is textbook when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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