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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implicitly indicates a read-only lookup by saying it returns what is published, and it usefully lists the full breadth of returned data, but it does not mention error behavior (e.g., product not found), authentication, or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core distinction ('one product'), followed by accepted identifier types and an efficient field list. Every clause adds value with no filler.

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 lookup with a fully documented input schema and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and accepted identifiers. It is nearly complete, with only minor missing behavioral details such as not-found handling.

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 schema already documents the single 'product' parameter at 100% coverage, including that it accepts an id, product page URL, or GTIN. The description repeats this same information without adding format details, examples, or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific resource ('one product') and scope ('Everything Media Depot publishes... in full'), and it enumerates the returned data fields (description, price, stock, identifiers, attributes, images, where bought). This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like search, browse, and filter, which return multiple items.

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 when to use the tool by specifying accepted keys ('by id, product URL or GTIN'), but it never explicitly names alternatives like search or filter, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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