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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: the output changes depending on whether slug is present or omitted. It does not mention return format or any rate/access constraints, but for a simple read-only lookup the added behavior is moderately useful.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter behavior stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coveragehol, the description covers the essential behavior and output semantics (hosted products and monthly price). There is no output schema, and while a precise return structure is not described, the description gives enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result at a practical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: it explains that an absent slug means 'list all hosted products' while a present slug narrows to one product. This is more than the schema's bare 'Optional. One product slug.'

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 identifies the tool's purpose: reporting which products are offered as hosted services and their monthly prices, with behavior for both a given slug and no slug. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on 'hosted' products, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 gives clear usage context: pass a slug to get one answer, or omit it to list every hosted product. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_catalogue, product, or compare, leaving tool-selection guidance largely implied.

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