get_product_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'информация' clearly indicates a read-only lookup, and the description enumerates the returned attributes. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a non-mutating information retrieval tool the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key output fields. There is no filler or redundant content, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 low complexity, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for invocation. The main gap is not clarifying how it differs from get_cis_info, but that is more of a usage-guidance gap than a completeness gap for a simple read tool.

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%: both 'code' and 'codeType' have descriptive text and enum definitions. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the input is a marking code, which is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action — retrieving detailed product information — and the resource (product by marking code). It lists the returned fields (name, group, manufacturer, owner), which helps distinguish it from batch or code validation tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool get_cis_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like check_marking_code, check_batch, or get_cis_info. The description only defines what the tool does, with no exclusions or recommendations.

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