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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main contribution is return-level context. It adds value by enumerating exact fields returned, including sale price, per-yard/each, stock, colors, and description. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence contains all key information, leading with the resource and grouping the output fields after a colon. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description explains the source of the id and the full set of returned details. Annotations cover safety and idempotence, so the agent has enough context to invoke 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 schema already fully documents the single id parameter at 100% coverage, including that it is an id from search results. The description reinforces this same constraint but does not add meaningful meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 targets a single product and enumerates the concrete return fields (price, sale price, per-yard/each, stock, colors, description), so an agent knows exactly what the tool provides. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_product, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"By the id search returned" establishes a clear precondition: the id must come from prior search results rather than arbitrary input. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools or when not to use it, but the stated context is sufficient for most selection scenarios.

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