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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that claims are 'corroborated' and detailing the return fields (outlet count, first outlet, evidence link), which clarifies what the agent can expect. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Every corroborated claim for one product') and conveys essential return details without filler. Every word adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its product-specific scope. It lacks edge-case handling details (e.g., no claims), but for a straightforward retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (category filter and product_slug source). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 all corroborated claims for a single product and lists the specific data points (reported info, number of outlets, first outlet, evidence link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product and search_claims, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for a specific product via 'for one product' and the product_slug parameter, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of search_claims or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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