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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: description text and the full image gallery are best-effort, every other field is always populated, and an unknown pv yields a not-found error. This tells the agent what may be missing and how failures surface.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its payload, then ID provenance, then caveats. Dense but each sentence earns its place; the field enumeration is the only mildly expendable part since an output schema exists.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be detailed, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still covers field payload, ID source, best-effort caveats, and error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single pv parameter, so the description carries the load and does so well: it defines pv as the product/color identifier and names the exact upstream fields that produce it. Tangible meaning beyond the bare string type.

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+resource: normalized product-detail data for one Prada product/color variant, and enumerates the returned fields (name, price, stock, sizes, breadcrumb, alternate colors, images). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search/category tools that surface the pv identifier.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent by explaining that pv comes from prada_search, prada_category, and this tool's own products[].pv/other_colors[] fields, and states the failure behavior for an unknown pv. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' exclusion, but the provenance guidance is strong.

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