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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context: it reads live from the merchant bridge but falls back to an indexed snapshot if the merchant is unresponsive, and marks the snapshot as such. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret result freshness, but it doesn't discuss auth or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 three sentences, front-loads the main purpose, then adds behavioral context about the live/snapshot fallback and purchase URL. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complex input schema with many optional fields and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how filters, context, signals, or other parameters affect behavior, nor what the return payload looks like. The live/snapshot nuance is helpful, but for a tool of this complexity, a capable agent needs more detail on parameter usage and expected output.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by product or variant id', which hints that the required `catalog.id` field holds that identifier, but it does not explain the structure of `catalog`, `meta`, `context`, `filters`, or other properties. For a tool with nested objects and many optional parameters, this is insufficient semantic support.

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 product detail by product or variant id, mentioning variants, price, and availability. The verb 'get' and resource 'product detail' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lookup_catalog or search_catalog, so an agent may not know when to pick this over them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings lookup_catalog or search_catalog. The description implies usage when you have an ID and want detail, but it never names alternatives or conditions. It only explains the live/snapshot behavior, not selection criteria.

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