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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an error is returned if the item is no longer listed, and the response omits pricing, capping photos at 3. That is useful context beyond the annotations, though response shape details are partially left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the id source, followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields and two short constraint sentences. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the returned-field list overlaps with what the output schema likely conveys.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining essentials: valid id provenance, failure mode (delisted item), and the no-price caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters (id, lang) are documented in the schema, including the id source and the enum/default for lang. The description reinforces the id provenance but adds no format, syntax, or lang behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (one wholesale item) with scope ('by the id'), and enumerates the returned fields (name, photos, category, stall location, link). It also names the sibling tools that produce valid ids, so an agent can distinguish it from search_products and get_new_arrivals without opening a schema.

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 clearly establishes the calling context: the id must come from search_products or get_new_arrivals. It also proactively rules out a likely expectation by stating 'No prices are provided; the link shows price and ordering details.' It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the routing context is clear.

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