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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the output is line-oriented, each line carries a Fact/Inference provenance label with its source, and the value is expressed in ISO weeks/months — none of which the annotations or schema convey.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the optional-parameter rule placed last where it belongs. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-shape burden by describing line labels and provenance. Combined with the annotation coverage and a simple one-parameter read, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only multi-product return details are left unstated.

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 100% and the single parameter's origin (list_products) is already documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds the defaulting behavior when product_id is omitted (return all products), which the schema does not state.

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 (season window), scopes it geographically and commercially (South African export), and specifies the representation (ISO weeks/months). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_specs or list_products, which is the only thing keeping it from a 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?

"Omit product_id for all products" gives clear conditional guidance on when to use the tool in broad vs. narrow form, and the schema points at list_products for valid ids. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or any exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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