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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds two genuinely useful behaviors not in structured data: attachment links are signed and expire after 1 hour, and extracted/user-entered text comes back under 'untrusted' fields and should be treated as data rather than instructions. That injection warning is high-value. It does not describe response size or error behavior for an unknown id.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the payload scope is front-loaded before the safety caveat. The security note is placed last where it belongs, right before the agent consumes the output.

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 correctly enumerates the returned sections and flags the signed-URL expiry and untrusted-text handling, which is what an agent needs to interpret the response. The main omission is any guidance on the 'format' switch, which affects payload size and shape for a potentially large record.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does not. The 'format' parameter (enum concise/detailed, default detailed) is never mentioned, leaving the agent unaware that a lighter payload is available; 'Returns everything' arguably implies the detailed shape only. product_id is at least implied by 'one product or inspiration item' but its UUID format is left entirely to the schema.

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+resource: 'Returns everything Aalto stores about one product or inspiration item', followed by an enumeration of what that includes (specs, tags, images, attachments, custom fields, collections). An agent can distinguish this from aalto_search_products or aalto_get_collection_context by the fact that it is a single-record full-detail fetch. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative for a different need, so not a 5.

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: fetch when you already have a product_id and need the full record. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of when to prefer aalto_search_products for discovery or aalto_get_collection_context for collection-level reads, and no note on what to do if the id is unknown.

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