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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (normalized unit price, bulk tiers, buy link, recent price history) — the closest thing to an output schema here. It omits history window length and result limits, keeping it below 5.

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 sentences, zero waste — the returned-field enumeration is front-loaded and the id-provenance note follows. 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?

For a 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and clear annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing: the required id, where to get it, what comes back, and the optional market behavior all resolve.

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 100%: product_id's numeric origin and the market's accepted values, default, and rejection behavior are all documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the id comes from find_cheapest or search_products and never mentions market, so it sits at the baseline.

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 (get) and resource (full detail for one product by id) and then enumerates exactly what detail is returned: price, normalized unit price, size, bulk/staffel tiers, buy link, and recent price history. An agent can distinguish this single-product lookup from find_cheapest and search_products without opening any schema.

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?

"Use the id returned by find_cheapest or search_products" gives a concrete prerequisite and routes the agent through the sibling tools that produce the required id. It does not state any when-not condition or exclusion, so it falls short of a full 5.

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