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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond them: the result includes a product page address on the site, and the read targets a *linked* Komers store, hinting at a connectivity prerequisite. It says nothing about behavior for a missing/unknown product_id or a disconnected store.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the resource and then the returned fields. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, which is a minor stylistic cost, but every clause earns its place.

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 field enumeration in the description is genuinely load-bearing and largely sufficient for an agent to know what it gets back. What is missing for a two-parameter lookup on an external store is failure behavior and confirmation that the store must first be connected via connect_komers/link_komers_store.

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 50% — `site` is described in the schema but `product_id` carries only a maxLength constraint. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the id identifies a product within the linked store, which implies scoping by site, but it gives no format hints for the id or what site accepts (slug vs id is left 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?

The description names the resource precisely ("one product of the linked Komers store by id") and enumerates what comes back (name, price, options, stock, image, category, product page URL), which separates it from the plural sibling list_komers_products. It stops short of a full verb+resource phrase and never explicitly contrasts itself with the list tool, but the singular scope is unambiguous.

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: the phrase "by id" signals a lookup that requires an already-known product_id, presumably obtained from list_komers_products, but that alternative is never named. There are no when-not conditions (e.g., unknown id, unlinked store) and no fallback guidance.

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