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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses response contents (description, options, variants with SKU, price, stock) and hints at downstream use (variant IDs for basket). However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., unknown slug), authentication requirements, or side effects, even though 'Get' implies read-only.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return contents; the second adds a practical usage note about variant IDs. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description thoroughly covers the return content, including variant fields and the basket-relevance of variant IDs. It omits only edge-case behavior like not-found handling, but for the intended use it is sufficiently complete.

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 already fully describes the slug parameter with an example. The description simply says 'by slug', adding no new semantic information about the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a product's full details by slug, enumerating the included fields (description, options, variants with SKU, price, stock). This distinguishes it from siblings like search-products (which searches) and view-basket (which shows basket contents), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by explaining that variant IDs are what you add to a basket, telling an agent why it might call this tool (to obtain variant IDs for basket operations). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score, but the context is clear.

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