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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety/scope profile is covered structurally. The description adds the example id format (p-1001) and the sequencing hint, but says nothing about pagination, not-found behavior, or response shape. Adequate but not rich given annotations carry the safety burden.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, with the alternative-routing sentence second. No filler, every clause 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?

Complete for a single-param read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema required. The only mild gap is not-found or empty-result behavior, but that is minor for a lookup like this.

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 100% and the parameter itself is simple, so the baseline is 4 (single, well-documented parameter). The description adds an example id ('p-1001') and reiterates the provenance ('from search_products'), slightly reinforcing the schema without contradicting it.

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?

Specific verb (Return) + resource (full details of one product) + identifier (by its id). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the lookup sibling search_products by describing itself as the detail-retrieval step after search.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the alternative: 'Use search_products first if you only know a name.' This routes the agent correctly between discovery and detail retrieval, which is exactly the routing ambiguity in this sibling set.

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