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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful non-annotation context: documents are not generic downloads and are tied to a specific design and production run, which explains why a request step is needed.

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 purpose is front-loaded and both sentences contribute useful information. The first sentence is a long conditional list and the closing phrase is slightly awkward, but there is no major waste.

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 one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description does enough: it lists the document categories and explains why generic files are not published. It is somewhat vague on the actual request mechanism and return shape, but not severely incomplete.

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 single sku parameter is fully documented by the schema as 'An F21 part number or product slug'. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or lookup semantics 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 states the resource and scope: which documents exist for a product and how to request them, including conditional document types. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling product tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast itself 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?

Usage is implied by 'for a product' and by the document-specific conditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative tools such as get_product_details or check_product_requirements.

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