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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose what the response contains (specifications, reference price or quote, sources, link) and hints that pricing may be either a reference price or a quote, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about missing/unknown slug behavior, auth needs, or rate limits, so gaps remain for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then the lookup keys, then the payload. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to get the essentials.

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 with no output schema, describing the returned fields compensates well for the missing return contract. The remaining omission is failure behavior for an unmatched slug/SKU, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'id' as slug or SKU. The description restates the same fact without adding syntax, format, or precedence rules (e.g., what happens if a value could match both a slug and a SKU). 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 ('Devuelve'), a specific resource ('ficha publica de un radio o repuesto Motorola'), and the exact lookup keys ('por slug o SKU'). The 'single record by exact identifier' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling search_products, so an agent can pick between them without opening either 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 'by slug or SKU' phrasing implies the tool is for when the identifier is already known, which is useful context. However, it never says what to do when the identifier is unknown (e.g., use search_products first) and names no alternatives or exclusions explicitly.

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