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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and describes the error behavior for a missing id: returns an `error` field and the list of existing ids, never an empty product. This is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope, read-only safety, and error behavior. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the safety note, then the edge case. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the safety profile, and the error case. It doesn't describe the exact structure of the returned measurements, but the description says 'everything we publish' which is reasonably complete for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 the single `id` parameter. The description adds context about what the id refers to (a product) and the error behavior when the id doesn't exist, but doesn't add format or syntax details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('one product'), and clarifies it returns everything published about that product, including measurements with machine and date. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_shelf or compare_items by focusing on a single product's full published data.

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 implies when to use it: when you need all published data for one product, including measurements. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the phrase 'one product' make the use case clear. It also gives a behavioral condition for invalid ids, which helps an agent decide when to call it.

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