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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the data domain covered (rows, commercial measures, evidence) and the key constraint that results are limited to the open task, though it says nothing about result size or entity-match fallback behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and every clause is functional. The single long sentence packing five sibling alternatives is dense but each clause earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, prerequisites (open task) and alternatives. The remaining gap is the 'brand' vs entity_type enum mismatch, which could lead an agent to pass an unmatched type value.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not explain entity_name matching beyond the schema's 'exactly as the user wrote it', and it introduces 'brand' as a target kind while the entity_type enum only lists supplier, category and product — a small ambiguity the description leaves unresolved.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Read every measure the open task holds for one named product, brand, supplier or category'. It enumerates what is returned (product rows, commercial measures, evidence) and scopes it to the open task, which separates it from catalogue-wide siblings.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Use it first when a question names something', then names three concrete alternatives with their conditions (get_sales_metrics for sales, get_inventory_position for stock, get_product_master for price/cost/lifecycle), plus get_entity_context for rationale and search_catalogue for out-of-task lookups.

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