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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that only public details are returned and lists the included fields, but it does not disclose not-found behavior or whether unpublished products are excluded.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The core operation and scope appear before the field list.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides enough context: the identifier format and the fields returned. Minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and pagination/image limits, but they are not essential for this tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single parameter. It does this well by defining 'handle' as the slug in the product URL, which is more useful than the bare string schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('get_product' / 'Full public details for one product') and clearly scopes it to a single product by handle. It distinguishes the operation from sibling list/search tools like search_products by emphasizing one-product lookup and enumerating returned fields.

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 implied: use this to fetch one product when you have its handle. The description defines the handle as the URL slug, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus search_products or get_article.

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