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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about the return contents (options, ids, labels, quantities, defaults, delivery times), which helps an agent understand the shape of the response. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth are mentioned, but with annotations present, this is adequate.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates returned data. It is efficient and waste-free, though the list of return fields could be seen as slightly verbose given the lack of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a decent job of summarizing the returned data, which is necessary. However, it omits any mention of the lang parameter or when to use this tool versus siblings. For a 2-parameter tool with 50% schema coverage, more could be said about parameter semantics and usage.

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 50% – the slug parameter is well-documented in the schema, but the lang parameter has no description there. The description doesn't mention lang at all, missing the opportunity to clarify it. However, the description does implicitly define what the slug represents ('one product'), which slightly aids understanding.

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 verb (get/fetch) and resource (product options), enumerating the specific data returned: format, paper, finish, ids, labels, quantities, defaults, delivery times. This is far more specific than 'Product options' alone. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_price or list_products, which is the only gap preventing 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema mentions list_products as the source of the slug, but the description doesn't state when get_product is preferred over get_price or list_products. No conditions or exclusions are provided.

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