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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered by structured data. The description only adds that the returned data is "public" details, which is mild but useful context about visibility; it says nothing about what happens when a slug is unknown or how the record is shaped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the title. Every word contributes to scope or the lookup key.

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 one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers the essentials for a simple read tool. It could be more complete by noting the error/not-found behavior or explicitly contrasting it with search_products, but nothing needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% for the single slug parameter, so the schema already defines it fully. The description restates the parameter's role ("by its slug") without adding format, case-sensitivity, or fallback behavior, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

"Get the full public details of one product by its slug" gives a specific verb (get), resource (product), scope (one, full public details) and lookup key (slug). It implicitly separates itself from search_products and compare_products by emphasizing a single product, but never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase "by its slug" hints that this tool is for retrieval when the slug is already known, which implies search_products is the path when it is not. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative, leaving routing to inference.

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