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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding that lookups are restricted to 'public' products and that unknown or withdrawn products surface as a tool error rather than an empty result. That error semantics is the main thing an agent could not infer from 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core scope ('public product details and taxonomy by exact slug') is front-loaded and the caveat follows.

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 does name the returned content (product details and taxonomy) and covers the failure mode. The gap is the locale parameter's effect on the returned taxonomy, which an agent may need to know.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden; it clarifies that the slug must be an exact match (not fuzzy), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about the locale parameter or what localization affects in the returned taxonomy, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 and resource ('Get public product details and taxonomy') and qualifies it with 'by exact slug', which separates it from the fuzzy search_products sibling. It does not explicitly name list_products or search_products, but the exact-lookup framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Implied usage is clear: exact-slug retrieval rather than listing or searching. However, it never says when to prefer search_products over this tool, nor that the slug must already be known, leaving the routing to inference.

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