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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses a concrete rate limit (one business asked at most once every ten minutes regardless of how many offerings are opened), the live-vs-cached fields (`live_check`, `from_cache`, `checked_at`), the degraded case where the stored reading stands with its date, and an operational rule about passing `action_url` through verbatim with ref=versum. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Key information is front-loaded — the synonym relationship first, then behaviour, then the caveats. It runs long and carries some framing overhead ('kept for agents that already know this name', the quotation marks around live_check), but almost every sentence contributes a distinct operational fact.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the fields an agent must interpret (`from_cache`, `checked_at`, `ok: false`, `action_url`) and the failure mode for non-item businesses. For a single-parameter lookup tool this covers everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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% and the single `id` is already documented as coming from search_catalog, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the cross-tool fact that the same id works in both get_product and get_offering, which is a small but genuine semantic addition.

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 first two sentences do the work precisely: it is a synonym of get_offering, it returns one offering in full, and a 'product' is defined as an offering of kind `product` sharing the same id. An agent can immediately tell it apart from search_catalog (many items) and get_offering (identical behaviour, different name).

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 when to call it ('before you quote a price to a person'), why ('a catalogue read yesterday is yesterday's price'), and when it cannot help ('a price list, a menu or a quote form has no single-item door to ask', returning ok:false). It also routes the agent to the server instructions and separates reading/quoting/requesting/ordering.

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