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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, which align with the description of a retrieval tool. The description adds value by detailing the depth of data returned (e.g., sentiment breakdowns, verbatim quotes) and mention of citation pagination via offset. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and cascades into details. Every sentence adds value, but the length is slightly verbose with a very long list of included fields, which could be more terse. Still efficient overall.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return types. It covers the key inputs and the richness of the output, with pagination hints. The only gap is the lack of mention about required permissions or data freshness, but with readOnlyHint set, it's acceptable.

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 input schema already provides full coverage: slug is required, citation_limit and citation_offset have defaults and bounds. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema offers, but it does hint at how citation_limit affects the breakdown ('always count every source regardless of this'), which is a minor addition. Baseline 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 explicitly states it retrieves 'one product' with extensive details like placement, verdict, pros and cons, GTIN barcodes, announcement date, breakdown of source sentiment, and full citations. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_products (which would find products) or compare_products (which would compare).

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 ends with 'Use this when a claim needs backing up,' providing a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, such as using get_tier_list for a simpler overview. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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