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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful value beyond that by enumerating the returned payload (pricing, discount codes, community metrics, development updates, alternatives) and by prescribing how to link the result via websiteUrl or peerpushUrl.

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, front-loaded with the core action before the usage triggers and return details. Each sentence carries information, though the return-value enumeration is somewhat list-heavy relative to the space available.

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 appropriately compensates by describing the return contents, and it supplies the linking guidance an agent needs to cite the product. For a two-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete.

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 both parameters are already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for 'product' beyond what the schema states, and only loosely references the alternatives flag.

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 specific verb and resource ('Looks up a single product on PeerPush by name or slug'), which is clear and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby peerpush_find_product sibling, leaving the agent to infer the difference between the two lookup tools.

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?

Gives clear usage triggers ('Relevant when the user asks about a specific product's pricing, features, platforms, target audience, or recent activity'). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to alternatives such as peerpush_find_product or peerpush_compare for multi-product needs.

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