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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's value is in the extra rules it discloses: desc and design are returned only for items listed in IDs, a module does not imply its components, and query is a case-insensitive name substring in the workspace language. These are non-obvious behavioral constraints that the annotations do not carry. It omits list-size/pagination behavior beyond the schema's maxItems hint.

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?

Single dense block, front-loaded with the return contents, which is good. However it runs on with parenthetical field mappings ('snapshotFID - snapshot, contextFID - layers') that read like raw schema notes rather than agent-facing prose, hurting scanability.

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 does carry the return-shape burden and describes modules, components, desc, and design, plus the IDs-conditioned inclusion rule. It leaves the pagination/limit story (maxItems 50 on IDs, any cap on returned modules) and the snapshotFID/contextFID meanings somewhat opaque.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: IDs gates whether desc/design payloads are populated, and query filters by name case-insensitively in the workspace data language. That is meaningfully more than the schema's terse field text, though the cryptic 'snapshotFID - snapshot, contextFID - layers' shorthand is hard to parse.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the product structure for tagging tasks and bugs: modules ... and components.' That clearly separates it from siblings like product_context, module_create, or component_create. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 'for tagging tasks and bugs' implies the use context, and the IDs/query clauses hint at retrieval patterns, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool named (e.g., product_context or component_update). Usage must be inferred.

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