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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the required capability (manage_woocommerce), the WooCommerce dependency, and the not-found error behavior. It stops short of describing things like whether variations or currency formatting appear in the payload, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 returned-field list and the primary purpose are front-loaded, and each clause (error behavior, siblings, permissions, connection scope) adds distinct value. The final forwarding sentence is slightly verbose but still informative.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned, what failure looks like, prerequisites, sibling alternatives, and connection scope.

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?

Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description restates 'by id' but adds nothing about id format or type beyond what the schema already declares, leaving this at the baseline.

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 and resource ('get one product by id') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what comes back without inspecting schemas. It is clearly differentiated from the read-many and write siblings.

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 routes the agent: wp_wc_list_products to find ids and wp_wc_update_product to modify. It also states the failure condition ('an unknown id returns a not-found error'), which is exactly the kind of when-not guidance an agent needs.

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