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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return-content detail (what data the tool provides) but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned fields. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the enumeration makes it slightly list-heavy.

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 read-only lookup tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description provides a thorough enumeration of the returned data, which is the key missing piece an agent would need. Minor gaps like error behavior or pagination are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter (SKU or numeric ID) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves product details and enumerates the exact fields returned (description, colors, stock, box dimensions, engraving techniques, price table). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_produtos (search) and calcular_preco (price calculation), though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 implied: the agent should call this to get detailed information about a specific product identified by SKU or ID. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings such as buscar_produtos or calcular_preco, leaving some inference to the agent.

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