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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds rich behavioral details: live price freshness (7-10 days), 24h price availability, delivery modes (e.g., exclusively to Loomis vault in CH), withdrawal right limitations, and VAT status. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points and complete sentences. Every sentence adds value, covering data fields, delivery nuances, legal disclaimers, and process notes. No unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly details the expected return data. It includes regulatory and process notes (KYC, withdrawal rights). However, it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool over siblings, slightly reducing completeness.

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%: 'ref' parameter is described with examples, but 'waluta' parameter only has enum values without a description. The description does not explicitly explain the 'waluta' parameter, leaving it partially undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full product data by SKU or handle, listing specific attributes included (metal, shape, weight, mint, accreditation, live price, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_availability and get_live_price by offering comprehensive data.

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?

The description explains when to use this tool (to get full product details) and includes important context like the agent not finalizing purchases and KYC requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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