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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral semantics beyond that: desc and design are returned ONLY for items listed in IDs, and 'a module does not imply its components' is a non-obvious structural caveat an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the main return, but the single run-on sentence mixes return contents, structural caveats, and filter behavior with heavy abbreviation (snapshotFID, contextFID), which is not optimally scannable.

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 return shape and does so reasonably (modules vs components, desc/design gated on IDs). Combined with annotations covering the read-only nature, it is largely complete, though the design/Figma fields remain 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 all three parameters are already documented. The description largely restates this (IDs controls desc/design return, query filters by name) rather than adding new format or syntax detail, 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 ('Returns the product structure ... modules ... and components'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like product_list and product_context. The parenthetical jargon (componentIDs, snapshotFID/contextFID) muddies the read a little, but an agent can tell what this tool fetches.

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 implies when it is useful ('for tagging tasks and bugs') and explains how IDs and query filter output, but never names or contrasts an alternative (product_context, product_list, module_update). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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