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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond that by explaining that returned prices reflect the site's default configuration, the variant's reference_quantity, cheapest shipping, euro cents, VAT-included with a VAT-excluded variant, and what is excluded (shipping, packaging, payment method). It stops short of noting that filters are silently ignored in the description text (that only lives in the schema) or any pagination behavior.

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?

Purpose and keyword examples are front-loaded in the first clause, and the sibling routing closes the text. However, the middle is a single dense run-on sentence packing price inclusion/exclusion rules, which is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well (price basis, currency, VAT treatment, link, image), which is the right priority for this tool. Gaps remain around pagination/cursor usage and the fact that filters are accepted but not applied, since nested objects raise the risk of misuse.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates partially by clarifying the query parameter's intent and Italian-language keyword examples ('biglietti da visita', 'adesivi trasparenti'), which meaningfully guide query construction. Pagination limit/cursor and the meta/UCP envelope are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cerca prodotti di stampa per parole chiave') with concrete query examples, and explicitly contrasts itself with two siblings (get_product for sizes/options, price_configuration for other quantities). An agent can distinguish this from get_product/lookup_catalog/price_configuration without opening a 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?

Explicit routing is given for two of three siblings with clear conditions ('per misure e opzioni usa get_product', 'per il prezzo esatto di un'altra quantita' price_configuration'). The remaining sibling, lookup_catalog, is never mentioned, so the agent lacks a rule for search vs. catalog lookup.

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