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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description additionally clarifies output details (largest first, only existing renditions), which aligns with annotations and adds transparency about result content without contradicting them.

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 concise, with no redundant or irrelevant wording. It packs essential details (output specifics, identifier usage) into two sentences, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the schema, annotations, and sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, input constraints, and output characteristics, leaving no ambiguity for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description explains that url, slug, and style_code are identifier alternatives and that exactly one must be used. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema. Metal_tone is not further elaborated, but schema provides its enum and description, so overall parameter semantics are well-covered.

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 returns gallery images with high-resolution URLs and specific photo attributes (metal tone, band width, finish, alt text). It is distinct from siblings like get_product or search_products, which are for general product info or search.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to identify the product by exactly one of slug, style_code, or url, providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, though that is implicit from the tool's purpose.

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