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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly avoids repeating that. It adds valuable contextual behavior such as 'live starting prices' and 'ids to echo into price_product', enriching the tool's data interaction model without contradicting 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists contents in a parenthetical list. Every phrase adds useful information with no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

With a full output schema and annotations provided, the description covers all operational essentials: it lists the exact data returned, the identification methods, and the relationship to price_product. For a read-only product detail tool, it is fully complete.

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% with all four parameters documented. The description adds the critical constraint that exactly one of slug, style_code, or url must be used, and clarifies that metal is an optional preselection, which goes beyond the schema by defining usage constraints and relationships.

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 starts with 'Full detail for one product' and enumerates specific data areas (metal variants, customization matrix, stone specs, etc.), giving a clear, specific verb+resource scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_products (which lists) and price_product (which prices) by focusing on single-product detail retrieval.

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?

Explicitly instructs how to identify the product ('exactly one of slug, style_code, or url') and even references using the returned ids to echo into price_product, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives beyond this implicit distinction.

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