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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the lookup is pinned to shop.rebag.com, which is genuine domain context the annotations do not convey, but it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown handle.

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 sentence with no filler; the parenthetical domain scoping is placed at the end where it belongs. Efficient, though extremely terse.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. The description supplies the source-domain constraint, leaving only minor gaps around invalid-handle behavior for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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 the schema already documents the handle as a required URL slug. The description's 'by handle' confirms the lookup key but adds no format or resolution 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 specific verb (retrieves detail) and resource (product), and the 'by handle' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools like rebag_products and rebag_search. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'by handle' implies an identifier-based lookup as opposed to search, which is a useful implicit cue, but the description never states when to use this versus rebag_search, rebag_products, or rebag_product_recommendations, nor any prerequisites for obtaining a handle.

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