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 adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns the mandatory parameters of a selected product, operates in two alternate modes, and is a prerequisite step for downstream search/pricing. It stops short of saying what happens when a keyword yields no match.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending on the exception, which is the right place for it. Dense but slightly cluttered by exclamation marks and all-caps emphasis that add tone rather than 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 read-only lookup with rich annotations and full schema coverage the description is sufficient to select and invoke the tool. But with no output schema, the agent still gets no picture of the return shape (product data vs. a parameter set) or the no-result behavior, which is a meaningful gap for a prerequisite lookup tool.

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 both parameter descriptions already state the either/or relationship (product_id makes product_name unnecessary) and the keyword constraint. The description mirrors that at a higher level but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (product/category data), and explicitly frames itself as the first step of product lookup. The two operating modes (keyword search vs. exact ID lookup) are named, and the exception tool is called out by name, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings immediately.

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?

Gives clear sequencing guidance ("first step for product search") and an explicit exclusion routing custom-sized cuboid pricing to calculate_custom_cuboid. However, it does not clarify the relationship with the sibling get_product_price (e.g., whether to call this before or instead of the price tool), leaving one relevant alternative undifferentiated.

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