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 real behavioral context beyond that: it names the failure mode ('an unknown product_id returns a not-found error') and previews the payload shape, though it does not cover pagination or empty-variant cases.

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 compact sentences plus a short error clause; the payload contents lead, the input provenance follows, and nothing is repeated from the schema. No waste.

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 detailed, yet the description still summarizes them. Input source, format example, and error behavior are all present — nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 100% and only one parameter exists, so the schema already documents product_id. The description nevertheless adds the concrete SKU format example (JI0397) and the upstream source field, which meaningfully reduces the chance of passing a name or URL.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Adidas product detail for one SKU') and an explicit enumeration of the returned payload (name, brand, category, pricing, images, size variants). This clearly separates it from adidas_search and the review/suggest 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?

States the exact provenance of the single input ('taken from an adidas_search result's products[].id field'), which tells the agent it must run adidas_search first. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is given, so it stops 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.