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

Annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds real context by naming the returned data categories and by scoping results to 'approved' products, which implies unapproved or unknown slugs will not resolve, though the failure behavior is not spelled out.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the payload contents in parentheses and the keying constraint last. Nothing wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover safety, this is nearly complete, and the parenthetical return-field list partly compensates for the absent output schema. It lacks any note on what happens when a slug is unknown or unapproved.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents slug and its source. The description only reinforces that lookup is keyed by slug and limited to approved products, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (product) and specifies the shape of the payload: technical data covering description, application and parameters for an approved product. The phrase 'for one approved product by slug' implicitly separates it from search_products, though the sibling is never named.

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 only implied: the slug parameter's origin is given in the schema ('from search_products'), and 'one approved product' hints at the lookup-after-search workflow. The description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names search_products or request_quote.

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