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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payload shape (variants/dimensions, price, availability) and a required auth-like meta profile, which is useful, but says nothing about errors, missing products, or limits for what is effectively a single-item retrieval.

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 covering scope and prerequisite with no filler. The leading 'UCP Get Product' is mildly redundant with the tool name.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully describes the return contents (variants, price, availability) and the required meta profile. However, with zero annotations and no sibling routing, an agent still lacks the behavioral and selection context needed to call it confidently.

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%, so both params (meta, catalog) are already documented in the schema, including the 'id, volitelně selected[{name,label}]' shape. The description only restates the meta profile requirement already present in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning.

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+resource ('Get Product') and scope ('plný detail jednoho produktu se všemi variantami, cenou a dostupností'). Clear about what it returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_catalog or lookup_catalog.

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 only usage-adjacent statement is a prerequisite ('Vyžaduje meta["ucp-agent"].profile'), which is not when-to-use guidance. There is no indication of when to prefer this over search_catalog/lookup_catalog or any exclusion.

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