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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description usefully adds what is retrieved (rates, stock settings, custom fields), but it discloses nothing further about auth needs, error behavior when the id is absent, or how the optional include affects the result.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the payload description and ending with the underlying REST endpoint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 steps in to name the returned sections (rates, stock settings, custom fields), which is the key missing piece for a read tool. The one gap is the include parameter's behavior, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of rates/stock settings/custom fields loosely hints at what can be embedded, but it never explains the 'include' parameter's accepted values or its effect, adding little beyond the schema text.

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), plus the payload contents (rates, stock settings, custom fields). 'One product' implicitly contrasts with the list_products sibling, but it never names or explicitly distinguishes itself from current_rms_list_products.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'one product' and the required product_id. There is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance on when to use this versus current_rms_list_products, and no stated preconditions.

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