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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does usefully disclose the payload shape (rates, stock settings, custom fields) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about the include parameter's behavior, auth requirements, or missing-record handling.

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 compact sentences with zero waste; the payload scope is front-loaded and the endpoint reference trails as supplementary detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned sections. For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, this is nearly sufficient, though error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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 product_id and include are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds the endpoint template GET /products/{id}, which only lightly reinforces the required id parameter and gives no detail on the include enum.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one product) and names the returned payload (rates, stock settings, custom fields), which implicitly separates it from current_rms_list_products. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Singular 'one product' implies retrieval by id for a single item rather than a listing, giving implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to current_rms_list_products as the alternative for browsing.

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