Product details

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still contributes by disclosing the shape of the payload (specs, category, comparable suppliers) and how similar_suppliers and category_slug connect to other tools, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

The core content is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph is devoted entirely to cross-tool linkage. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does so by naming the main fields and the similar-suppliers table. It stops short of stating return format or ordering, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that product_id comes from rs_search(kind='products') and that max_rows bounds the similar-suppliers table. The description reinforces that similar_suppliers is the row-limited section but adds no new syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 names the resource precisely (a single registered product) and enumerates its contents: HS/ISIC codes, brand, maker, country, category, and comparable suppliers. That is far more specific than a restatement of the title, though it phrases the action as a noun ('One registered product') rather than an explicit retrieve-by-id verb.

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?

It gives concrete routing help for two siblings: similar_suppliers entries carry a company_id for rs_company, and category_slug maps to product_category in rs_search_companies. It does not say when to prefer this over rs_search(kind='products') for discovery versus detail lookup, so a small gap remains.

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