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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the structured failure object and its retry-related fields (error.code, error.retry_recommended, error.retry_after_seconds), which is useful for an agent deciding whether to retry.

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, front-loaded with the primary operation and scope, followed by failure behavior. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description provides what is needed: the purpose, ID examples, and structured error behavior. Return-value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single product_id parameter is already documented. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of the ID format ('demo_iphone_15_pro or prod_xxx from a completed job'), which clarifies meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Public product ID'.

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 and resource: 'Get structured product price intelligence by product_id'. It is clearly distinct in kind from sibling tools like search_products or get_price_history, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives to route the agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent should use it when it already has a product_id from a completed job or a known demo ID. The description does not say when to prefer search_products or get_price_history instead, nor does it state exclusions.

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