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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds some return-value context (characteristics, variants, prices, SKUs) but does not mention response shape, errors, or any other behavioral details.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and contents. The opening 'Карточка товара:' partly repeats the title, but the rest of the sentence earns its place by listing what the response includes.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup, the schema plus annotations cover the call contract and safety profile, and the description covers the return scope. The only missing element is explicit routing guidance relative to find_by_sku and search_products, which is more of a usage concern.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, documenting it as 'id товара (prod_…) или handle'. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the full meaning.

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 states the resource (product card) and its key contents: characteristics, variants, prices, and article numbers. This is specific enough to distinguish it from search/recommendation tools, though it never explicitots the 'get' verb and does not name a sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool name and the required 'id' parameter suggest it is used when you already have a product id or handle. The description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_product over find_by_sku or search_products, and no exclusions.

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