Product details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape and breadth of the response — including licence restrictions and update history — which is decision-relevant behavior, not just a restatement. Minor gap: no indication of payload size or whether very large products are truncated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of returned facets and a one-clause caveat. The field list is long but justified in the absence of an output schema; no filler sentences.

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 no output schema, the description must describe return content and does so thoroughly, which is exactly what an agent needs to judge whether this tool supplies the licence and pricing data it wants. The only shortfall is the absence of any note on response size or failure behavior for unknown slugs.

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?

Only one parameter exists with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the documentation burden and a 3 is the baseline. The phrase 'one product' hints that the slug identifies a single record, but no format or resolution guidance (e.g., where to obtain the slug) is added.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Everything about one product') and then enumerates exactly which facets are returned — files, editions, prices per tier, pack membership, licence terms, update history. 'One product' also contrasts with the sibling search_products, so an agent knows this is a single-record fetch rather than a search.

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?

Provides a concrete operational directive: 'Check the licence before suggesting a product for commercial work,' which tells the agent when the returned licence data must gate downstream recommendations. It does not explicitly route to siblings (e.g., search_products to find a slug first), so the selection guidance is context-clear but not exhaustive.

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