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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one genuinely behavioral detail — the link-response status reflects the last check, implying cached/stale data — but the rest of the text is a return-field listing rather than operational context such as rate limits or missing-record behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then the payload. No filler, no repetition, and every clause adds a distinct field group.

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 a full output schema and complete annotations, the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. Minor inefficiency: the bulk of the text re-describes return fields already defined by the output schema rather than covering usage or failure behavior, though nothing an agent needs is actually missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is documented in-schema, including its 10-hex-character pattern and that ids come from search_products or similar_products. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Get one product by id') and enumerates exactly what is returned. The phrase 'one product by id' implicitly contrasts with the list-style siblings search_products and similar_products, so an agent can tell it is a single-record lookup.

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 is only implied: the reader infers this is the tool for expanding a single product once an id is known. It never explicitly says when to use it instead of search_products or similar_products, nor does it state prerequisites or error conditions for an unknown id.

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