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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: it lists the exact fields returned (key, label, allowed values, default, required, affects price, display order) and explains turnaround as live production/lead time with a concrete example (24 hours if artwork approved by 3 pm AEST). It also notes product-specific variations, which is valuable beyond the structured 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 3 sentences, each with a distinct role: main purpose, return field details, product examples. It is dense but not wasteful; every sentence adds 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?

No output schema is provided, but the description compensates by enumerating the return structure and turnaround semantics. It also gives per-product option lists, making the tool predictable for the agent. Remaining gaps (e.g., error handling) are minor given the read-only, idempotent nature.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a description and examples. The description reuses the same examples (feather flag, corflute, table throw) but adds product-specific option breakdowns, which adds context to what values the parameter accepts without changing the parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies; no additional syntax or constraints are added.

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 opens with 'Get a product's FULL real option schema' – a specific verb and resource. It clarifies the purpose ('configure it correctly before pricing/ordering') and distinguishes it from pricing/ordering siblings by focusing on option configuration.

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?

It explicitly states the tool should be used 'before pricing/ordering', giving clear context. It also notes the difference from partial schemas with 'not just size', implying when full configuration is needed, but does not name alternative tools or exclusions.

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