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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior: it fails with product_unavailable for unknown/non-public handles, explains that availableForSale=false variants cannot be bought, and explicitly warns that a resolved variant is not artwork approval or a purchase quote. No contradictions with 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and return summary. The final sentence about quantity, artwork, source, and policies is somewhat cryptically worded and arguably could be clearer, but the overall structure is efficient and each part contributes useful context.

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 full burden of describing the return value, and it does so thoroughly: fields, variant semantics, selection behavior, failure modes, and important caveats. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in typical scenarios.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: selectedOptions must use the exact name/value pairs from the variant, and supplying selectedOptions triggers resolution with missing/invalid/unavailable guidance. This meaningfully aids correct invocation.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Describe') and a precise resource ('one public InkFE product by handle'), which is unambiguous. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like search_products and list_business_card_templates by focusing on a single product rather than listing or searching.

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 clearly establishes when to call it: when you have a handle and need a full product description. The parameter guidance in the schema reinforces that handles come from search_products or list_business_card_templates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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