pp_get_product

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the returned detail (EAN, folder, promo group, dietary labels) for a tool with no output schema, though it says nothing about missing-product or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter-provenance note second. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile and whose only parameter is explained, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Omitting full return-field enumeration is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% and the single parameter is documented only as a bare string type, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the provenance of product_id ('the product_id field from any search or list result'), which tells the agent where to obtain a valid value, though not its format.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (full detail for one product) and enumerates the kind of content returned (EAN, folder, promo group, dietary labels). The singular 'one product' implicitly separates it from the plural list/search siblings such as pp_list_products and pp_search_products_by_name.

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 second sentence establishes the precondition for calling it: product_id comes from any search or list result, which routes the agent from the search/list siblings into this detail tool. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or a when-not-to-use case, so it does not reach a 5.

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