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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds value the annotations cannot: it enumerates the returned profile fields and clarifies the two URL fields and which to cite. It stops short of noting any rate limits or auth, but that gap is minor here.

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 tight sentences, each with a distinct job: what it returns, when to call it, and what the outputs mean. The field inventory is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the profile fields and the two URL outputs. Combined with the 100%-covered parameter and safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by its slug', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured field, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Full public profile of one listed product by its slug') and enumerates the returned fields, making the scope unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list/browse/search 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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite siblings ('Use it after search_listings, browse_category, find_alternatives or get_trending') and the triggering condition ('when the user wants details on one product'). The when-to-use and the alternative flow are both spelled out.

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