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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying what the response contains: offers from multiple sellers, specifications, reviews, and pricing history. It also discloses the token dependency. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup tool the key behavior is communicated.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then gives the prerequisite and the key return contents. 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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how to get the required token, and what the response will contain. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, so nothing essential 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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces that product_token comes from google_shopping_search results, matching the schema, but adds no new semantic details for gl or location beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Get detailed product information from Google Shopping.' It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling google_shopping_search by requiring a product_token from that search, so an agent can understand this tool as the detail-fetching follow-up rather than a search 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 explicitly states the prerequisite: the tool requires a product_token obtained from google_shopping_search results. This tells the agent when it is appropriate to call the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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