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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It enumerates the output fields comprehensively, providing insight into what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention error conditions or rate limits. The behavior is largely transparent through the output description, but lacks explicit safety declarations.

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 sentence with a colon-separated list of fields, which is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly dense but avoids extraneous wording. The structure effectively communicates the tool's scope in one breath.

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 that there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns, covering pricing, quality, SLOs, provenance, and limitations. It leaves little ambiguity about the tool's capabilities. The only missing aspect is explicit mention of the parameter, but that is a minor gap compared to the richness of the output description.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameter 'slug' at all. The schema only indicates a required string, leaving the meaning of 'slug' ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, so the parameter's semantics are unclear beyond the obvious product identifier inference.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the full machine-readable commercial contract of a product, listing specific fields (pricing ladder, credit multipliers, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_products or sample_product by focusing on comprehensive contract details. The verb 'inspect' and resource 'product' are explicit.

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 implies usage when an agent needs the full contract details, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as search_products or sample_product. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of other tools for partial or summary views. The usage context is inferred from the detailed output list.

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