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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the qualifier that IDs are 'canonical' (i.e., must come from the known set) but says nothing about not-found behavior or what a successful read returns, leaving little added context.

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?

One short sentence with the verb and the key constraint up front. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 lookup with an output schema and full annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is error/not-found behavior, which the caller may need to know.

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?

There is a single parameter whose schema uses an enum covering all valid values, so the schema itself effectively constrains input even at 0% description coverage. The word 'canonical' in the description adds the useful hint that the enum values are the only valid identifiers, but no format or sourcing detail is given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a product') plus the lookup key ('by canonical product ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_capability and get_catalogue. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the noun difference is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_catalogue, get_capability, or list_capabilities. The only usage signal is the implied constraint that the ID must be canonical, which the caller must infer.

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