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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns data but does not explicitly state it is read-only, whether authentication is required, how missing slugs are handled, or any rate limits or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and lists the key output fields. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more structured.

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's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and output fields. However, it lacks details about the output structure (single object vs. array), error behavior, or edge cases. Since there is no output schema, the description is the sole source of return-value information, making it only partially 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?

The schema already documents the sole parameter 'slug' with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantic context by linking the parameter to 'one product', but offers no additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 function: retrieving verification signals for a single product, including kind, band, source, and last confirmed date. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('One product') differentiates it from siblings like verification_stats without explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied through the singular scope and the 'signals' focus: an agent can infer it is for fetching detailed signal data for a specific product. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over verification_stats or search_products, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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