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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful substance by enumerating what a successful call returns (title, description, price(s), images, metadata), which is the main behavioral fact annotations cannot convey and there is no output schema.

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 the resource, key options and returned fields; nothing is wasted. It is dense to the point of terseness, but every clause carries 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?

Listing return fields compensates well for the absent output schema, but for a tool in a large catalog with a near-identical sibling (stripe_search_products) the description offers no routing rule and no failure behavior for an unmatched id or slug. Adequate, with a clear gap.

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% and the schema already states 'Stripe product id (prod_…); wins over slug', so the description's 'by id or metadata.slug' merely restates the same precedence rule. No format or fallback nuance is added beyond 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?

Identifies the exact resource ('One Stripe product') and the two lookup keys (id, metadata.slug), plus the fields returned. It reads as a lookup despite omitting an explicit verb, and the singular 'One product' contrasts with the sibling stripe_search_products.

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 id-or-slug keys imply a direct-lookup use case, but the description never says when to prefer this over stripe_search_products or how a missing product is signaled. The agent must infer the routing decision from the parameters alone.

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