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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: only visible sarees are returned, a canonical storefront URL is included, and that URL should be presented as a clickable product link. It does not cover error behavior for invalid or non-visible IDs.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no waste. The core retrieval behavior is front-loaded, and the output/presentation guidance follows logically.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated. Annotations cover safety traits, and the description adds visibility scope and URL presentation guidance. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior for invalid or hidden IDs.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'id' parameter. It usefully explains that the id may be a public catalogue ID or canonical locator, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and pattern constraints.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Vaanzari saree'), and scope ('one visible', by public catalogue ID or canonical locator). It implicitly distinguishes from search_sarees through the singular retrieval and ID/locator lookup, but does not name the sibling alternative explicitly.

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 indicates the retrieval context (by public catalogue ID or canonical locator) and provides presentation guidance for the returned URL. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_sarees, leaving selection guidance implied.

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