plugins_atlas_get_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'static' qualifier and the fact that related descriptive records are returned, but it provides no additional behavioral detail beyond those facts, and it does not contradict the 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 a single concise sentence with no filler and the key information front-loaded: what it reads, and that it is a single static product. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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?

Given the rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), a single required parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It only misses explicit usage guidance and identifier semantics, which are relatively minor for such a simple lookup operation.

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%, so the tool description needed to explain what product_id should contain and how it relates to the Atlas catalog. The description merely says 'Read one static Atlas product' and does not clarify the identifier format, source, or relationship to search results, leaving the agent to rely mostly on the parameter name and length constraints.

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 names a specific action ('Read'), a resource ('one static Atlas product'), and a scope ('related descriptive records'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like plugins_atlas_search or plugins_atlas_inspect_loaded, so it stops short of full 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 says what the tool does but not when to use it over alternatives. There is no mention of 'use search when you lack an exact product ID' or 'use inspect_loaded for installed products,' so the agent has to infer the intended use case from the schema and sibling names.

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