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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real value by disclosing that the data is fetched live and giving a latency profile (a few seconds direct, up to ~20s via unblocker). It says nothing about failure modes (invalid productId), rate limits, or caching, which matters for a live-scrape tool.

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?

Two tight sentences: the returned fields are front-loaded, then the latency caveat. No 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?

There is no output schema, so listing the returned fields is genuinely useful, and the latency note covers the main operational surprise. Missing only error/edge-case behavior for an invalid id.

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% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts either a numeric product id or a full URL. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 resource ('Product details from Ceneo') and enumerates the returned fields (name, images, description, brand, price range, offer count, rating), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings ceneo_product_offers or ceneo_search, though the field list implies the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching a single product's details, but the description never names ceneo_product_offers or ceneo_search as alternatives or states when not to use this one. No prerequisites are mentioned.

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