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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of context the annotations cannot express: that inputs must be non-sensitive, and that the result is documentation-only and not an eligibility determination — an important constraint on how to interpret output.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary use case front-loaded and the interpretive limit second. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given that, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the trigger condition and the explicit statement that the result is not an approval decision. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33% and a nested characteristics object containing eight sub-fields, the description does little beyond referring to 'supplied non-sensitive characteristics'. The 'non-sensitive' qualifier is a genuine addition, but it does not clarify field meaning; a 3 reflects partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('checked') and resource ('documented requirements') scoped to 'one returned product', which implicitly distinguishes it from find_borrowing_products (which returns products) and get_product_details. A reader can tell what it does, though the explicit contrast with siblings is left to inference.

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?

'Use when a user wants documented requirements checked' gives a clear triggering context, and 'Never predicts eligibility or approval' acts as a boundary condition on interpretation. It does not, however, name an alternative tool for the case where the agent wants an eligibility judgement.

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