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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds meaningful nuance about commission semantics, variant behavior, and the actual vs. range-based commission. It goes beyond the annotations by explaining edge cases like min==max when there are no variants, which is useful for correctly interpreting the response.

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 a single dense sentence that starts with the core purpose and then densely packs necessary response-field detail. It is not particularly compact, but given the complexity of the returned structure and the lack of an output schema, each segment earns its place. The layout uses separators effectively to organize related concepts.

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 read-only lookup with one required parameter and no output schema, this description does a thorough job of explaining what the agent will receive and how to interpret ambiguous commission values. It explains variants, per-variant commissions, and edge-case behavior, but does not cover possible failure modes or response envelope details. Overall, it is sufficient for 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 100% and the only parameter, product_id, is already described as 'Product UUID' in the schema. The description merely repeats that it operates 'by UUID' without adding additional format, validation, or usage details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's specific purpose: getting full details for a single product by UUID. It lists the exact resources and fields returned, and the 'single product by UUID' framing distinguishes it from siblings like find_products. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is appropriate when you already have a product UUID and need full details for one product, implying it is not for searching or finding multiple products. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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