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

The description provides rich context about the returned payload—listing specifics like 'age limit,' 'preparation time,' and 'availability.' This goes beyond the behavioral safety provided by annotations (like readOnlyHint: true), setting clear expectations for the content the agent will receive.

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 tool value proposition is condensed into a single, powerful sentence. There is no filler, and the key differentiators are front-loaded and immediately visible.

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 detail provided in the description about the output structure (price, variants, availability, images), the description is highly complete and gives the agent sufficient information to determine if this tool will fulfill a user's complex request.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'variants' contain 'their own price,' which describes a specific structural detail about the return data complexity that is not explicitly mandated by the simple input 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?

The description provides an extremely specific scope by detailing the exact information included (full description, DKK price, all images, variants, etc.). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools that only handle specific subsets of data, like 'check_stock' or 'get_product_options'.

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 does not explicitly guide the user on when to choose this tool over others (e.g., comparing it to get_product_options). However, the implied usage is clear: use it when the goal is to retrieve a comprehensive view of a product that is already identified.

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