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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists return fields and does not mention authentication, rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. As a read-only operation, this is minimally transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key return fields without extraneous information.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description lists relevant return fields and covers usage. Missing behavioral details lower the score slightly, but overall it is mostly complete.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (id and sku) at 100%. The tool description adds 'per ID oder Artikelnummer' which reinforces the schema but does not provide new meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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 the tool retrieves a single product by ID or SKU, listing specific fields like price, availability, brand, etc. It is well differentiated from siblings such as list_products (list) and check_availability (stock check).

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 implies use when you have a specific product ID or SKU, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like search_products or get_variants. Usage context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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