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

The annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: older observations are withheld from latestPrice, null price is expected for quote-gated B2B, and related product relations have direction/source quote semantics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 long but front-loaded with the core action and then spends each section on important operational nuances: provenance, pricing branching, quote-gated expectations, and the related_products relation semantics. A few return-value details are likely redundant with the output schema, but the structure is organized and purposeful.

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 description covers the input contract, the distinguished product record, the price-related caveats, the intended handling of B2B quote null pricing, and the meaning of related product relations. For a one-parameter tool, this leaves little ambiguity about how it operates and what the returned data represents.

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?

The schema already documents slug with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the slug convention ('<manufacturer>-<model>'), which provides meaningful but minimal additional clarity beyond the schema's 'Composite slug' description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it 'get[s] the full golden record' and 'latest price for one catalog product by slug.' It adds a precise identifier format and product context, so it is clearly distinct from sibling discovery/compare tools.

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 makes the tool's context clear: it is for retrieving a specific catalog product by slug, not for search or comparison. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is specific enough that an agent should know when to invoke it.

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