get_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only lookup, and 'detailed product information' implies a richer response than a search result. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing or invalid product IDs, retailer-specific data differences, or any authorization requirements, leaving notable gaps.

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 with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. The key lookup concept 'by product ID / SKU' is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is concise without being truncated.

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?

The tool is simple, the output schema exists, and the parameters are straightforward, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. However, there are no annotations, no explicit usage routing among siblings, and no clarification of retailer semantics. This makes the description minimally viable but noticeably incomplete.

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 description must compensate. It does clarify that product_id is an ID or SKU, but it says nothing about the retailer parameter, such as whether product_id is retailer-specific or how the retailer enum scopes the lookup. Only one of two parameters receives meaningful semantic treatment.

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 concrete action ('Get') on a specific resource ('product information') and a precise lookup key ('product ID / SKU'). This distinguishes it from search_products, which finds products without an exact identifier, and from get_stock/compare_price, which focus on narrower aspects. Some vagueness remains in the word 'detailed,' but the core purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'by product ID / SKU' implies the correct use case is when an identifier is already known, and that search_products would be the alternative for discovering one. However, the description never explicitly states when not to use the tool or how to choose among the sibling tools, so the guidance remains only implicit.

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