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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the underlying REST endpoint (GET /v1/products/{prod_id}/), which is mild corroborating context, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the id does not exist.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and scope before the endpoint detail. No filler; every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what is returned beyond 'one product'. It confirms singular retrieval but not the response shape or error behavior, leaving a modest gap for a read tool with two parameters.

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 both product_id and the with relationship parameter are fully documented in the schema, including the comma-separated and 'all' formats. The description only restates 'by id' and 'optionally with relationships', adding no syntax or default detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'One product by id' — which is unambiguous and implicitly contrasts with the sibling cratejoy_list_products. It stops short of explicitly naming the list alternative, but an agent can distinguish retrieval-by-id from listing without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many get_* and list_* siblings. 'Optionally with relationships' hints at the embed option but does not tell the agent when that is appropriate or when to prefer cratejoy_list_products.

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