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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds no further behavioral context such as handling of missing ids or connection requirements, but it also does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately compact for a simple getter, even though it leaves sibling-selection nuance to the reader.

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?

Together with the detailed schema and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool safely and correctly for a single identified product. It omits return-shape and not-found guidance, but for a get-by-id tool these are minor gaps.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, including the important connectionRef contract, so the description does not need to repeat parameter-level guidance. 'by id' adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 names the action ('Gets'), the resource ('BRC product'), and the lookup key ('by id'), so it is unambiguous as a single-record getter. It also differentiates from list/batch products through the singular 'one', though it does not explicitly name those sibling tools.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool should be used when a known product id needs to be fetched as a single record. It does not explicitly state when to prefer brc_list_products or brc_list_products_without_dormant instead, leaving the alternative selection largely implied.

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