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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower; the description still adds a genuinely useful trait — the response matches update_product's input shape, enabling read-modify-write round-tripping. It doesn't add much beyond that about errors or permissions.

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 what the tool returns, followed by when to call it. No filler.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers content, shape and workflow adequately. Only a minor gap remains around listing versus single-fetch scope.

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% and both parameters are documented (handle format, productId source from list_catalog), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level 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?

States a concrete verb (read) and resource (one product) and enumerates what the payload covers — price, images, policy, questions, settings — which separates it from list_catalog. It also ties the shape to update_product, though it doesn't explicitly say 'do not use this to list'.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition: 'Read it before changing a product, and to answer questions about it', which implicitly routes mutations to update_product. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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