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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail, that each row is sourced (provenance per row), but says nothing about table size, pagination or ordering.

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, no filler. The output/what-it-is statement is front-loaded and the parameter routing follows immediately, with each clause doing distinct work.

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-optional-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level (tables, sourced rows) and all three call patterns. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or result ordering, which are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 only 50% and product_id has no schema description at all, so the description must carry weight — and it does, explaining that product_id returns every table the product appears in and that omitting both params lists tables. It adds the inverse-lookup semantic that the bare schema cannot convey.

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 concrete resource and shape: comparison tables of products and their alternatives on shared attributes, with each row sourced. That clearly separates it from get_product, list_attributes and search_products without needing to open a schema, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 second sentence gives explicit selection logic across all three invocation modes (id for one table, product_id for every table containing that product, nothing to list), which is exactly the routing an agent needs. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool versus a sibling like search_products.

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