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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds batch resolution context but omits behavior on partial failures, error handling, or return structure. Acceptable given annotations cover safety, but more detail would help.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words, front-loaded with key action and resource. Efficient and clear.

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?

With an output schema present and single parameter, the description covers the basic purpose and ID types. Missing details like batch size (max 50, in schema), error behavior, and return format explanation. Adequate for a simple tool but not thorough.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the ids parameter accepts LMK slug, id, or external/merchant IDs, adding meaning. However, no format examples or constraints are provided, which limits value.

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 batch-resolves products by specific identifiers (LMK slug, ID, external/merchant ID). It distinguishes from siblings like get_product (single) and search_catalog (search), making it 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 11 sibling tools (e.g., get_product for single lookups, search_catalog for searching), the description should explicitly mention preferred use cases or exclusions.

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