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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the prerequisite dependency on search_products and the set of supported destinations. It stops short of describing pagination/limit behavior or how many options a typical response contains.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case and example, then prerequisites, then the supported-destination list. Mostly earns its words, though 'Pass a returned key as optionKey' introduces a parameter name that doesn't exist on this tool and briefly muddies the otherwise tight flow.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs — trigger, prerequisite, downstream tool, and destination coverage. Pagination guidance for the limit/offset pair is the one notable omission.

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 43%, so the description has to carry more weight. It explains how to narrow results ('with words or choices') and how to feed a returned key or choices into compare_product, which adds value over the schema, but limit, offset, and the canonicalProductId pattern are left undocumented anywhere.

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 — lists a product's fields and supported configurations — scoped by destination and currency, and immediately distinguishes itself from compare_product and search_products. An agent can tell what it returns (supplier pricing options for a size/color) without opening the schema.

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 opening clause names the exact trigger scenario ('when a seller wants supplier pricing for a specific print-on-demand product size or color') and gives a concrete example. It also spells out the prerequisite ('Search products first to obtain canonicalProductId') and the downstream handoff to compare_product.

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