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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes beyond by explicitly stating 'Every call is read-only and idempotent' and detailing the error handling behavior: 'never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}' with examples. This adds significant value 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 description is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes an example, usage guidance, error details, and essential behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes value; slight redundancy in restating the purpose could be trimmed, but overall it is appropriate for the information density.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, example, usage against siblings, error behavior, and idempotency. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with a description for slug. The description adds a typical input example and specifies that the slug must be exactly as returned by list_products, which provides context beyond the schema. While schema already covers minLength and description, the added example and source reference earn a score above 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?

The description clearly states the tool loads one product in full including persona and every paid skill. It provides a typical input/output example and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_full_skill and get_free_skill, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Use when the caller wants the whole product' and provides clear exclusion criteria: 'Not for a single skill (get_full_skill) and not for a free look, which list_products and get_free_skill provide with no plan.' It also mentions retry safety after error correction, offering comprehensive guidance.

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