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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the default compact response (~14 fields) and explaining how to request full data with response_format="full", including resale intelligence. It does not contradict 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second covers the key behavior (default format vs. full format) without any filler or redundancy.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the response shape and the main format option. Combined with the rich parameter descriptions and read-only annotations, nothing critical is missing, though it could have briefly mentioned the 'resale' format or not-found behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including the crucial warning that the search result's 'id' field is not resolvable here. The description adds a little color around resale intelligence, but this largely duplicates what the response_format parameter description already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('details for a specific product by its retailer SKU/ID'). The single-item-by-ID scope is clearly distinct from search-oriented siblings like search_retailer_products and from price-history tools.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you already have a retailer and product SKU/ID and want product details. Parameter descriptions reinforce the workflow by telling agents to take product_id from search_retailer_products results and retailer_id from list_retailers. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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