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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description does not contradict. Beyond that, the description adds significant behavioral detail: it discloses that known limitations are sourced weaknesses with evidence URLs to 'weigh before recommending', alternatives are neutral and score-ranked with self excluded and houseProduct disclosed, and unverified status is based on vendor claim absence. This enriches the agent's understanding of data trustworthiness and bias, exceeding what annotations provide.

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 dense paragraph but well structured: it begins with the core purpose, then details the response object fields with parenthetical clarifications (e.g., tier values, absence conditions, neutrality of alternatives), and ends with the error format. Each sentence adds necessary context for correct interpretation. It is longer than minimal but justified by the complexity of the response; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the rich and complex output schema (nested mcp, agentArtifacts, agentReadiness, conditional fields like verifiedAt and knownLimitations), the description covers all relevant aspects: it lists every main field, explains conditional presence, describes error codes, and includes caveats like houseProduct disclosure. The output schema exists but the description complements it with semantic nuance (e.g., 'weigh before recommending'), making the tool fully understandable and safely invocable.

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 only parameter is 'slug', which is fully described in the schema as 'Product slug (URL-friendly identifier)' (100% coverage). The tool description also references 'by slug' but adds no additional syntax, format, or validation details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clear action ('Get full details for a product by slug') with a specific resource and required input. It enumerates the exact data categories (MCP integration, agent artifacts, readiness scores) and explicitly distinguishes itself from related tools by mentioning product-bound artifacts as a property of the product, which aligns with the sibling tools like products.find_agent_ready and products.get_mcp_setup.

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 provides strong context for when to use this tool: it is the comprehensive product detail fetcher, including MCP data, artifacts, and readiness. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use this', but the detail level implies it is the primary lookup tool, and the sibling list shows more specialized tools (e.g., products.find_agent_ready) that would be used for narrower queries. Lacks explicit exclusions or comparative guidance, so not a 5.

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