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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the description's job is to add context. It does so by spelling out the full return payload, including photos of the product, brand and client. It does not say what happens when a product_id is invalid or missing (the schema covers the default case).

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?

Everything is packed into one front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and the payload. The phrase 'brand and client' is repeated in the photo clause, which is slightly redundant but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so field by field, down to the three photo keys. Only the nesting/shape of the returned object is left unstated, which is a minor gap for a single-record read.

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% and the single product_id parameter is fully documented there, including its 'default' fallback and where to obtain it. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and then enumerates exactly what comes back: title, description, extra context, brand, client, and photos with image_key/url/source. That level of detail separates it cleanly from list_catalog, which is only implied as the source of product_id.

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?

Gives an explicit downstream workflow: show images to the user and pass the chosen image_keys into create_video's catalog_image_keys, which names the sibling and the handoff field. It stops short of saying when to call this versus listing the whole catalog, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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