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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes meaningfully beyond that by disclosing the derived content of the response: supersession dates in the version archive, which safety data sheets are older than three years, and recipient counts for new versions. It does not cover behavior on a missing or unauthorized product_id, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tool's scope is front-loaded before the field enumeration, so the reader gets the gist in the first clause. It is one very long run-on sentence whose parenthetical field list could be tightened, but each listed item carries real information rather than padding.

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 bears the burden of describing the response, and it does so comprehensively, including computed fields like expired-sheet flags and contributor counts that an agent could not infer. The only gap is edge-case behavior (product not found, permission failure) for a single-record fetch.

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 parameters are already documented, including the de/en/pl enum and the fallback-to-German behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and instead spends its words on return content, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Returns one product of the connected account" states a specific verb and resource with an explicit cardinality, then enumerates exactly what that record contains. This cleanly separates it from the plural list_my_products and the mutation/sibling lookup tools without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you have a product_id and need the full record. The description gives no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to resolve_product or search_products for the case where the caller only has a name or identifier rather than an id.

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