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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: every fact carries its source page and date, subscription cost is only reported when both price and billing period are stated, and support status is qualified 'as of a stated date' — disclosing data-completeness conditions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the opening clause, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of fact categories, closing with the parameter's effect. Two sentences, no filler, and the qualifiers about sources/dates are load-bearing rather than padding.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: it lists what facts come back and that each is sourced and dated. Both parameters are addressed. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when a fact is unpublished or unknown.

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% and the enum for 'section' is already self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the section behavior ('Optional section narrows the answer to one part') but adds no format or value detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (ownership facts for one product) and then enumerates the exact fact categories: return window, return shipping/restocking, warranty, subscription cost, support status, recalls and security-update windows. That enumeration distinguishes it well from content-oriented siblings like get_in_the_box or get_product_facts, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied — an agent infers it should call this when it needs post-purchase commitments for a product. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling, so routing decisions still require inference.

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