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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating exactly what will be returned (prices ex/inc VAT with bulk breaks, stock, variants, documents, canonical URL) and by adding the exclusivity constraint on identifiers. 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?

Two sentences carry the full purpose, return content, identifier options, and a hard usage constraint. No filler, no repetition of schema text; information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the major return categories in enough detail for an agent to gauge response shape. Minor gaps remain, such as error behavior when zero or multiple identifiers are supplied, but the description is otherwise self-sufficient for a safe read-only lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by imposing the constraint that exactly one of slug, sku, or id be provided, which the schema does not enforce. This guides correct invocation beyond the structured parameter docs.

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 ('Full details for one product') with a specific resource and scope ('by slug, SKU or id'). The phrase 'full details' plus the enumerated content (description, specifications, prices, stock, variants, documents, canonical URL) clearly distinguishes it from specialized siblings such as get_product_documents and get_product_promotions.

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 communicates how to use the tool ('Provide exactly one of slug, sku or id') and implies it is the general-purpose product lookup, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. An agent can infer usage context but is not given exclusions.

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