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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: membership requirement and the full breadth of the payload returned (variants, computed inventory, gallery/delivery options).

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the payload, then usage and docs. It reads as one long sentence and the exhaustive field enumeration is dense, but since there is no output schema that enumeration earns its place.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly; it also notes members-only access. Only minor gaps remain (no error/pagination or clarity on how archived rows affect the return unless includeArchived is set).

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%, including the important 'includeArchived' default-true semantics and the note that productId comes from listRikmaProducts. The description adds no parameter syntax beyond the field listing, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get one product of the rikma') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: base row, gallery/delivery, option axes, variants, categories, computed inventory. This clearly separates it from listRikmaProducts, listRikmaProductVariants and updateRikmaProductTool.

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 a concrete use case ('verify a product before editing stock, pricing or variants') and an eligibility constraint ('Members only'). It does not state when NOT to use it, but the intended workflow context is explicit and actionable.

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