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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the locale effect (localises name/currency/pricing/URL, but descriptions stay English) and the conditional presence of the wholesale block. It does not mention error handling or response structure beyond the blocks, but for a simple get-by-ID tool, this is substantial coverage, warranting a 4.

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 dense sentences that are efficiently front-loaded: the primary action and scope appear immediately, followed by essential details about pricing and locale behavior. No fluff or repetition; every clause adds value.

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 tool with only two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what the response contains (branded pricing, wholesale block, localized fields) and how locale affects it. There are no missing critical details that would prevent a correct invocation.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for the locale parameter by specifying exactly which fields it localises and that descriptions remain English, which goes beyond the schema's simple list of allowed values. For pid, the description reinforces its role as the product identifier. This exceeds the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full product details by PID'), and immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_products by focusing on direct ID lookup. It also adds specificity about pricing models (branded vs wholesale) and locale behavior, which makes the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 description implicitly indicates this is for direct product lookups by PID, contrasting with search_products, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough (you need a PID, not a search query), but there is no explicit routing guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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