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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: documents are 'current' per registered market, include download URLs and version identifiers, and are market-partitioned, which warns the agent that a single call without region may span markets.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contents, followed by the one operational caveat that matters. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (label, SDS, URLs, versions) and the market-partitioning caveat. Minor gap: it doesn't say explicitly what happens when region is omitted, though 'per registered market' implies a multi-market result.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it explains why market/region selection matters (regulatory labels differ per market) rather than just restating the field. The slug's origin from search_products is repeated from the schema, which is the only wasted overlap.

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 current regulatory documents for a product') and enumerates the artifacts returned: official product label, SDS, download URLs, and versions. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_product, which presumably returns product data rather than regulatory documents.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: labels are market-specific and the caller must use the document for the market where the product will be applied, which implicitly motivates the optional region parameter. It also points at search_products for the slug. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming get_product as the alternative for non-document data.

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