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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main contribution is listing the specific data fields returned (status, category, sourcing). This adds context beyond annotations but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, performance, or requirements beyond the slug. The description does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary return fields. There is no fluff or redundancy. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential return fields (status, category, sourcing) but lacks details on output formatting, possible values, or error conditions (e.g., product not found). Sibling tool names provide some context, but the absence of an output schema places more burden on the description to define the return structure, which it does only at a high level.

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 schema has one parameter, product_slug, with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain what product_slug is, its format, or how to obtain it (e.g., from list_products). The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but with 0% coverage and no elaboration in the description, the agent receives minimal help in constructing correct input.

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 specifies exactly what the tool returns—release status, category, and claim sourcing—using the resource 'product' and scope 'one product.' The title adds the verb 'get,' making it clear this is a retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_claims and list_products by focusing on a single product's aggregated status.

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 implied: if you need a single product's release status, category, and sourcing quality, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_products or get_claims, nor any discussion of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid product_slug from another tool). No exclusions or alternative contexts are mentioned.

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