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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing important interpretive details: `premium` is a disclosure for paid placement, not a quality signal; `url` may be an affiliate link while `uneed_url` is neutral; `domain_rating` can be null if not measured. These behavioral nuances help the agent correctly rank and use the data without misleading users.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact list of return fields, then targeted disclaimers, and finally a cross-reference to sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. It is dense but well-structured and easy to scan.

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?

The description fully covers the output semantics (fields, null handling, link trust), the input source (how to get slugs), and the tool's read-only nature (consistent with annotations). For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 already documents the single `slug` parameter with an example ("resend"). The description adds context on how to acquire a valid slug by referencing sibling tools, which is beyond raw syntax. Since schema coverage is 100% and the only param is clear, a 4 is appropriate for the added guidance.

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 the tool's purpose: "Use this when you have a product slug and need its full public profile on uneed.best." It enumerates the specific data returned (description, website URL, category, tags, pricing, stats, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_alternatives and search_products. The verb 'get' plus resource 'product' is explicit and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: "Use this when you have a product slug" and provides clear guidance on how to obtain slugs: "Find slugs with search_products, get_trending, get_recent_launches or get_alternatives." This distinguishes it from search/explore tools and gives actionable context.

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