Read a product reference sheet

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world), but the description adds real behavior: what is returned (four panels plus grid with download links, QC scores, or the failure message), the QC provenance (same vision QC as vivid_compare_product), the cost ('Free'), and the blocking wait. The only gap is that the wait/timeout caveat is carried mostly by the schema rather than here.

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 what the sheet is, then the read-only behavior, then the alternative tool, with no filler sentences. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 correctly explains the return value (panels, grid, download links, QC scores, failure message) and the cost/wait behavior. The only missing piece is the meaning of `projectId`, which an agent would have to infer.

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 67%, and the description reinforces the semantics of `waitSec` ('waits up to waitSec while one is being made') and `product` ('saved product'). However `projectId` is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('The reference sheet of a saved product... This tool only reads: it returns the current sheet'), and describes the artifact concretely as a 2x2 grid. It explicitly distinguishes itself from vivid_create_product_sheet by naming what it does not do (make a new sheet).

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?

Routing is explicit: 'To make a new sheet use vivid_create_product_sheet.' It also states the read-and-wait pattern covers the case where a sheet is already being made, so an agent knows the call will not always return instantly and does not need to poll a separate status tool first.

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