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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are limited to 'visible' rows and are bound to the current work-unit snapshot, which tells the agent about permission-scoped and snapshot-pinned data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource scope up front and no filler. Efficient, though it omits any routing sentence that would have earned its place.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description only needs to convey scope — which it does via 'visible' and 'current work-unit snapshot'. The missing piece is sibling differentiation against get_entity_context and get_product_master.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (including the enum and the 'exactly as the user wrote it' requirement) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a restatement of the accepted entity kinds, and notably lists 'brand', which is not one of the enum values (supplier/category/product) — a mild inconsistency rather than added meaning.

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 ('reads') and resource set ('product rows, commercial measures and evidence') scoped to an entity in the current work-unit snapshot. Clear, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_entity_context or get_product_master, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'current work-unit snapshot' hints at a scoping condition, but the description never says when to pick this over get_entity_context, get_product_master, or search_catalogue, nor does it name any exclusion.

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