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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that details are 'current', without noting the multi-shop scope or that priced/personalized results may depend on session context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the resource and the two key identifiers immediately. It is efficient, though minimally so.

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?

The output schema removes any need to describe return values, and annotations cover safety, so the main gap is the undocumented shop/lang dimension and the absence of guidance on the pricing/session interaction. Adequate but leaves real ambiguity for a 5-parameter 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 only 20%: lang, shop, product_id, and variant_id lack schema descriptions. The description names product_id and variant_id but adds no format, default, or constraint meaning, and never mentions the shop or lang selectors that materially change the response.

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 (retrieve) and resource (product details), and scopes it to a 'known' product ID plus optional variant, which distinguishes it from the sibling search_products. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 word 'known' implies this is for when an ID is already in hand rather than for discovery, which is useful implicit guidance against search_products. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or reference to alternatives is given.

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