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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, but it only says 'complete details' without specifying response structure, whether it's read-only, or potential limitations. It assumes a get operation but doesn't explicitly disclose behavior beyond the name.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the simple purpose.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so the description should explain return values and behavioral constraints. It only says 'complete details' but leaves the actual content and any side effects unspecified, making it incomplete for an agent to predict response.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (sku and store). The description's 'by SKU' restates the sku parameter's role, adding no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to high 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 the tool retrieves complete product details using a SKU identifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_stock and search_products by specifying the resource and key identifier.

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 implies usage when a SKU is available and full product information is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools or provide exclusion conditions.

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