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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it confirms no funds are spent and discloses the exact composition of the returned payload (method, price, schema, sample input, purchase contract), which is useful for an inspection tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the returned artifacts, and the key constraint (no funds spent) with zero wasted words.

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 one-parameter read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates what comes back and that nothing is charged. The only real gap is that it does not characterize the product_id input, which the schema leaves undocumented.

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% for the single product_id parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. 'Return one product's ...' only implies that product_id selects the product; it adds no detail on acceptable format (slug vs UUID), constraints (max 100 chars), or error behavior for unknown ids.

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 states a specific verb (Return) and enumerates the resource payload: method, exact price, schema, sample input, and autonomous purchase contract for one product. It clearly separates itself from mutating siblings like execute_paid_product via 'without spending funds', though it never names the alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Without spending funds' and the title 'Inspect product proof before paying' imply the pre-purchase inspection use case, so the agent can infer when to reach for this over execute_paid_product. However, there is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative inside the description itself.

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