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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations, such as returning updatedAt and directing the agent to reuse it as expected_updated_at when proposing live edits. This helps the agent understand how the fetched data feeds into subsequent operations.

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 tight and front-loaded: the core action and return contents appear in the first sentence, followed by a targeted usage note and a terse routing summary. No filler or redundant schema repetition exists.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with two fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool returns, how to identify the target product, and why the agent should call it before editing. The added expected_updated_at context is especially useful and makes the tool's role in the edit workflow clear.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the product_id gid format. The description reinforces that the id looks like gid://shopify/Product/... but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Shopify product's full detail by id', and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (description, status, tags, updatedAt, variants with price and inventory). This clearly differentiates it from list-oriented tools like list_shopify_products and mutation tools like update_live_shopify_product.

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?

It provides explicit context: 'Use before editing a product', which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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