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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about review screening ('reviews that passed review screening') which isn't in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, so with annotations raising the bar, this is adequate but not rich.

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 dense sentence front-loading the returned fields, followed by a terse 'Read-only' confirmation. It is efficient, though the long list of fields makes it slightly less scannable.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers return fields well. But it omits usage guidance and any behavioral details beyond the safety hint, leaving minor completeness gaps for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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 100%, so the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add syntax, format, or examples beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the baseline.

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 (get) and resource (products) and enumerates exactly what is returned: names, prices, crossed-out prices, variant_id, Subscribe and Save availability, product and checkout links, and screened reviews. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like build_cart or get_policies.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The description lists returned fields but doesn't say when to call get_products versus ask_nwb, where_to_buy, or build_cart, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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