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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds a meaningful access boundary: pharmacy-level pricing is 'shown only to verified patients on the product page,' while public price range is included. This clarifies what is and is not visible.

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 dense but purposeful: the opening clause 'Everything public about one product' frames the tool, and the following list names concrete return fields. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every clause adds useful detail rather than fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the response scope in detail: product attributes, prices, stock, leaflets, FAQs, and review score. It also covers the key access caveat and the prerequisite for obtaining the slug, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the slug parameter is already well documented with an example. The description adds value by telling the agent exactly where to get the slug from ('find_products or search_findabis first'), which supplements the schema with practical sourcing guidance.

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 action and resource: 'Everything public about one product...' and enumerates the exact data returned. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling search tools by instructing the agent to obtain the slug from find_products or search_findabis first.

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 explicitly says 'Get the slug from find_products or search_findabis first,' which routes the agent to the correct discovery tools before calling get_product. It implies this is the tool for full product detail after a slug is known, though it does not explicitly contrast against all siblings.

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