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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior for an unknown/invalid SKU, or SKU case sensitivity. The output schema covers the return shape, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose before the examples. The example SKU list occupies a full line but is justified given the 0% schema coverage on the parameter.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials and supplies SKU format examples. Only edge-case behavior (invalid SKU, not-found handling) is left unstated, which is minor at this complexity.

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 0%, so the schema says nothing about the sku parameter beyond its type. The description compensates partially by giving concrete example values (GR-001 through GR-005), which conveys the expected format, but does not state requiredness or matching rules.

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 (Retrieve), resource (Salvage & Surplus product), and lookup key (by SKU), which is clear enough to separate it from search_products. It never names the sibling or explains the distinction explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no mention of search_products as the alternative when the SKU is unknown. The 'by SKU' phrasing weakly implies a SKU is required, but the agent gets no real routing guidance.

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