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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns no price, missing fields are simply absent from the PIM, and the FAQ is rarely populated. This helps an agent set expectations about the response without contradicting the 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?

Every sentence earns its place: the resource type and content are front-loaded, the price exclusion and alternative tool are stated clearly, and the argument cardinality and data-availability caveats are concise. The structure makes the most important information immediately visible.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent can expect: product descriptions, constraints, resources, and the absence of pricing. Usage intent, parameter cardinality, and missing-field semantics are all addressed, making the definition sufficient for correct selection and 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?

The input schema already documents both sku and url in full, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important constraint 'Provide exactly one argument', which clarifies that the agent should choose one of the two optional parameters rather than passing both or neither.

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's purpose: it retrieves the PIM sheet for a product, listing descriptions, key points, FAQ, file constraints, and resources. It also distinguishes itself from quote_product by explicitly stating it returns no price, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.

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 when to use the tool: to describe a product or help prepare a file. It also gives an exclusion, directing pricing workflows to quote_product, and instructs the agent to provide exactly one argument, which is actionable guidance for correct invocation.

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