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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns document URLs and can identify a product by slug or SKU, but it does not disclose response structure or behavior for missing/ambiguous inputs.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately states the key output ('Returns document URLs'). Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 provides the essential output type (document URLs) but omits which parameter combination is expected or whether sku/slug is required. It is adequate for selection but leaves some invocation ambiguity, especially since all parameters are optional.

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 fully documents sku, slug, and locale. The description reinforces that slug or SKU can identify a product, but it adds no meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 states a specific resource ('product documents') and enumerates the document types returned: safety data sheets, specification sheets, and COSHH hazard codes. This differentiates it from siblings like get_product or get_related_products, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 this tool is for retrieving product safety/spec documents rather than general product details, but it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough to infer, but the guidance is not directly stated.

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