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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavioural context by describing what is returned per market — registrations, approved crop/target uses, PHI, pack sizes, safety summary — which is the main thing an agent needs to know before calling a detail endpoint with no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the identifying parameter and the returned content are both stated immediately and every clause carries information.

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 correctly spends its words enumerating return contents, which is exactly the gap that needed filling. It stops short of covering locale effects on the response or error behaviour, but the schema handles locale semantics adequately.

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%, with slug documented as coming from search_products and locale documented including the important rule that regulatory facts are never translated. The description itself adds only 'by its slug', so the schema is doing the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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: 'Get the full detail for one product', keyed by slug, and enumerates the payload (active ingredients with FRAC/HRAC/IRAC codes, formulation, uses, per-market registrations). This clearly separates it from the list-style search_products sibling, 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 implied rather than stated: 'by its slug' plus the schema note '(from search_products)' signals the search-then-fetch flow. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_product_documents, and no note on behaviour for unknown slugs.

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