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

readOnlyHint is already declared, so the safety profile needs no restating. Beyond that, the description discloses the returned field set (owner/description/links/media/categories/tags/publish time), which matters because there is no output schema, and it discloses the resolution behavior of the two identifiers. It does not cover visibility/privacy rules (for example, whether unpublished or draft products are returned), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 four short segments with the core action and payload first, then the parameter rule, then the usage trigger, then the resource alternative. Every sentence earns its place. The bracketed "【相关 resource】" block is slightly awkward as a formatting choice, but its content is useful.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration in the description does the work of telling the agent what comes back; with a small, fully documented schema, the parameter rules are covered. When-to-use, precedence, and return contents are all present, so nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds the crucial constraint that the schema does not: the two parameters are mutually exclusive ("两个参数二选一") and slug wins when both are supplied ("slug 优先"). That precedence rule beyond the schema prevents an ambiguous call and justifies going above baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("按 id 或 slug 获取产品完整详情") and then enumerates exactly what "完整" includes: owner, description, links, media, categories, tags, and publish time. This clearly separates it from the list/search siblings (list_products, search_products), which return summaries that this tool expands.

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?

It states two concrete trigger conditions — a user clicking on a product to see details, and expanding a specific record after search/list results come back — so an agent can infer when to call it instead of a list or search tool. It also names an alternative access path (resources/read opcmenu://product/{slug}), which is the explicit alternative-routing guidance that the criteria call for.

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