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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds semantic context about CDR BankingProductFeatureV4 and example feature types, but does not disclose response format, pagination, or error behavior. It adds some useful context but no significant behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by useful feature examples and routing guidance. The feature example list is slightly long but helps set expectations about the value of the tool, so every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only lookup tool, the description is fairly complete: it states the return subject, provides domain context, names the sibling tool for constraints, and gives a prerequisite. No output schema exists, but the description's opening sentence sufficiently conveys what is returned.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both productId and dataHolderBrandId. The description adds a reference to GetDataHoldersByCategory as the source of dataHolderBrandId, which slightly reinforces the prerequisite, but it does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description clearly states it returns features and benefits for a specific banking product identified by Product ID, with concrete examples of feature types. It distinguishes from get_product_constraints (eligibility/usage limits), but does not explicitly differentiate among close siblings like get_product_features_by_type or get_products_features, though 'single product' and parameter context imply the distinction.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this tool for product capabilities; use GetProductConstraints for eligibility and usage limits.' It also states a prerequisite workflow: 'Use GetDataHoldersByCategory first to obtain a valid Data Holder Brand ID.' This leaves little ambiguity about when and how to call the tool.

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