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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: response content is conditional on authentication ('with an account also spec tables, MOQ and lead time'), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the returned fields; every clause carries information with no padding.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and the auth-conditional extras, which is what an agent needs to decide whether the call answers its question. Only the identification semantics of the two required slugs are left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining supplier_slug and product_slug, yet it says nothing about how a product is identified or where the slugs come from. The parameter names are semi-self-documenting, but the description adds no meaning beyond them.

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 and resource ('One product's full record') and enumerates the content returned, so an agent can distinguish it from the plural search_products sibling. It stops short of naming or contrasting the siblings explicitly, keeping it below a 5.

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 only implied: 'One product's full record' suggests single-record retrieval versus search, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this over search_products or get_supplier, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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