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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (variants, sizes, prices, dieline) and 'Get' signals a read-only operation, which is adequate for a simple read tool. It does not add context on error behavior or billing implications beyond what the schema's npub note already states.

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 12-word sentence front-loads verb, resource, and scope, then enumerates the return contents. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool title.

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 single-item read tool with an output schema present, the definition covers what is fetched, what it includes, and where the product_id comes from. The only gap is explicit differentiation from roastify_get_my_product and roastify_browse_catalog, which an agent must infer from the word 'catalog.'

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 67%: npub and product_id have meaningful descriptions (billing purpose; source from browse_catalog), leaving only dpop_token undocumented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already handles most of the burden, so no compensation is needed.

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'), a single resource ('one catalog product'), and the included data ('variants, sizes, prices, and dieline'). The qualifiers 'one' and 'catalog' implicitly distinguish it from list/browse and 'my product' siblings, though it doesn't name them 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?

The main description gives no when-to-use or alternative routing guidance. However, the product_id parameter description ('The catalog product id from browse_catalog') implies a prerequisite workflow — browse first, then fetch a specific product by ID — which is real but implicit usage guidance.

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