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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains the no-cloning behavior across NEW/REFURBISHED/USED offers, that condition is only projected when source-declared, and that condition is never inferred. It does not cover error behavior or response contents, but the core semantics are clearly disclosed.

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 core action, with no filler. Each sentence adds a necessary piece of information: what the tool returns, how conditions work, and when to call the sibling tool.

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 simple 2-parameter read operation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers invocation, condition semantics, and the required companion call. The main gap is the absence of any indication of what 'canonical data' contains, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must add value beyond the schema. It does: 'Use condition to project a source-declared condition when present' gives behavioral meaning to the parameter beyond its enum values, while the sku parameter is already adequately described as an exact SKU.

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 ('Returns canonical data') and an exact resource ('an exact AutoID SKU'), making the tool's scope clear. It also distinguishes itself from get_product_offer by noting that current commercial data requires a separate call.

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 directs the agent to call get_product_offer alongside this tool for current commercial data, and explains when condition projection applies. It stops short of naming other alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the guidance is unambiguous for the main decision.

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