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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the returned content surface (landed price, specs, weight, stock, delivery window). It says nothing about what happens when the SKU is unknown, whether stock/delivery figures are live or cached, or any auth/permission requirement, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded fragment that enumerates the payload with zero filler; the parenthetical "(landed)" is a useful disambiguation of price. It is terse to the point of being a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly the compensating detail an agent needs, so the core is covered. The remaining omissions (not-found behavior, freshness of stock and delivery data) are minor for a simple lookup.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. "One SKU" does convey that product_id is a SKU identifier rather than an internal row id or name, which is genuine added meaning, but it gives no format, example, or lookup guidance.

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?

"Full record for one SKU" states a specific retrieval resource with an explicit cardinality (one), and the field list (price landed, specs, weight, stock, delivery window) makes the scope concrete. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_products (plural lookup) and check_stock (single-field check) via the word "Full", though it never names those siblings.

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: an agent can infer this is the single-product detail fetch rather than a search or a stock check. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no precondition such as "call search_products first to obtain product_id".

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