products_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the requested information (usage statistics fields) which adds clarity about the response content. However, it doesn't disclose safety profile (read vs mutation) explicitly, though 'Get' strongly implies read-only. Could mention the companyId override behavior or permission requirements.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, no waste. It communicates the core purpose and enriched return data in one concise sentence. Could arguably front-load the usage-statistics detail less, but it's compact and clear.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what data is returned (usage statistics). No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the key returned fields. A minor gap: no mention of error cases (not found, invalid uuid) or whether companyId override affects the stats returned.

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 both uuid and companyId are documented in the schema. The description adds context about what the returned data contains (usage statistics), which is beyond the schema. The description doesn't elaborate on companyId semantics beyond the schema's 'Company UUID override', which is already reasonably clear.

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 it retrieves detailed info about a specific product by UUID, with specific verb 'Get detailed information' and resource. It lists the specific usage statistics returned. It's distinguishable from products_list (which presumably returns a collection), though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling for differentiation.

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 provides a clear context (retrieve a product by UUID with usage stats) but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus products_list or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools named. The usage context is implied by the 'specific product by UUID' phrasing.

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