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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only/idempotent, and the description adds critical behavioral context: results are returned in the storefront UI, and the thread_id must be propagated unchanged to every subsequent Channel3 call, including unrelated searches. This goes beyond annotations and is essential for correct stateful usage.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, and the key behavioral details are present. However, the final two sentences about thread_id largely repeat information already in the schema's thread_id parameter description, adding redundancy that could be trimmed without losing necessary emphasis.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, and the critical thread_id statefulness rule. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema, and the context 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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that product_ids can be IDs from search results or retailer URLs, and that multiple IDs are fetched in parallel for comparison, which enriches the schema's bare field descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Get full product data') with a defined resource (offers, description, attributes, images) and identifies two input methods (product ID or retailer URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing search_products and noting batch comparison, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance to use search_products to find products first and suggests passing multiple IDs for comparison. However, it does not clarify when to prefer get_products over sibling tools like get_details or get_similar, so it lacks full exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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