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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context with "full public listing", hinting at the returned scope and possibly visibility constraints, but it does not clarify pagination, error behavior for unknown slugs, or whether non-public records can be fetched.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler or redundancy. Nothing in it is wasted or misplaced.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read with annotations and full schema coverage, so not much is required. However, with no output schema, the description is the only place to say what "full public listing" contains, and that phrase remains vague about the returned fields and shape.

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% and the single parameter already documents both accepted forms with an example ("acme-app") and the "domain" interpretation of key. The description's "by slug or key" merely restates the schema, adding no format, case-sensitivity, or lookup-precedence detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 full public listing for one product, by slug or key" names the resource (one product) and the retrieval key (slug or key), and "one product" implicitly contrasts with the list/search siblings. It stops short of naming list_products or search_products explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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: "one product" suggests this is the single-record fetch versus list_products/search_products, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the product must exist or be accessible, nor of what happens for private products given the sibling set_product_private tool.

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