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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the id format: it does not mention batch lookup behavior, missing-id handling, or response characteristics. With annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining gaps are notable.

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 efficient sentence with the key lookup criteria and id format front-loaded. No words are wasted.

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?

The tool has nested parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain return shape, whether multiple ids are resolved in one call, or how missing ids are handled. For a lookup tool with this schema complexity, more context is needed.

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 50%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for the ids parameter by explaining the slug and slug@ml formats. However, it does not clarify the required catalog wrapper or provide further detail on nested fields such as context and intent.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: look up products or variants by id. It also clarifies the id format (product slug or slug@ml). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_product or search_catalog, but the 'by id' scope makes its role reasonably clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_catalog or get_product. The id-based lookup implies usage when identifiers are known, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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