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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by enumerating the document types returned and stating that the result is a set of document URLs, which helps the agent predict the response without needing to open 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?

The entire description is two short sentences with high information density. It front-loads the document types, adds the identifier options, and states the return shape with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 the simple parameter set, full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is essentially complete for selecting and invoking the tool. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly say that at least one of slug or SKU should be provided, even though that is strongly implied by 'by slug or SKU'.

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%, so the schema already documents sku, slug, and locale. The description adds only the clarification that a product can be identified 'by slug or SKU', which is useful but not a major addition beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 states the tool retrieves product documents (safety data sheets, specification sheets, COSHH hazard codes) and returns their URLs. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_product or get_related_products, which return general product or relationship data.

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 the right usage context: when document-level data such as safety or specification sheets is needed for a product. It also tells the caller the lookup can be done by slug or SKU, but it does not explicitly list when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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