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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description only needs to add context beyond safety. It adds that samples come from real production runs and are marked sample:true, and that they reveal the response shape – useful behavioral context beyond 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?

The first sentence is concise and front-loaded with purpose, but the second sentence repeats the entire enum list verbatim, which duplicates the schema and adds length without new information. This reduces conciseness, though the structure itself is clear.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, its purpose, and the available products. It does not describe the exact return structure, but it promises to show 'the exact response shape', which is sufficient given the absence of an output schema.

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% and the parameter is an enum with a clear description 'Product id (see the enum)'. The description repeats the full list of products, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully defines the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool returns a free recorded sample response for a paid product, from real production runs marked sample:true, to preview the exact response shape before paying. This is a specific verb (get sample), resource (paid product responses), and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that actually process 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 explicitly states 'before paying anything', which gives clear context for when this tool should be used (pre-purchase preview). It does not name an alternative tool or explicitly say when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide an agent.

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