Get product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the required scope (view_profile), the 'reviewed native' status of the endpoint, and that no local effect approval is needed — details annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The scope/approval notes are compact, though they read as internal compliance boilerplate rather than agent-facing guidance.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action and auth scope but says nothing about the returned product shape or error behavior (e.g., missing ID). The permission and approval notes are useful, but the return-value gap keeps this at an adequate-but-incomplete level.

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 defines both parameters (account label semantics and the opaque product_id with its pattern/length constraints). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 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 pairs the verb with the resource and anchors it to a concrete native endpoint (GET /products/:id), so an agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like get_variant or list_products beyond the resource 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g., list_products for enumeration, get_variant for variants). The only usage-relevant information is the implied precondition 'scope: view_profile', which is a permission note rather than routing guidance.

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