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. The description adds useful payload scope (unsupported countries are returned, page counts only for multi-page products), which is genuine context beyond annotations, but it discloses nothing about lookup misses, caching, or error behavior for an unknown UID.

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?

A single sentence enumerating payload contents followed by the endpoint route. It is front-loaded with the resource and every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what comes back and how to obtain the UID. It is nearly complete; the only gap is how failures (invalid or stale UID) surface, which is minor for a GET.

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% and the schema already documents product_uid with its pattern and length bounds, plus points back to gelato_search_products. The description does add the framing that the UID identifies a catalog product, but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (get) and resource (one catalog product by productUid), and enumerates what the payload includes: attributes, weight, supported/unsupported countries, printable/stockable flags, valid page counts. This distinguishes it from gelato_search_products (search) and gelato_get_store_product (store-scoped product), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Usage is implied: the single required parameter note '(from gelato_search_products)' hints at the discovery-then-fetch flow. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus gelato_get_store_product or gelato_get_product_prices, and no statement that this is a read-only lookup versus a write path.

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