products_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing what the payload contains (total usage count, total revenue, average quantity, first/last usage dates) – critical since there is no output schema. It does not state behavior when the UUID is unknown or the product belongs to another company.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and identifier, then the value-add detail. No filler and nothing that could be cut.

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, enumerating the returned fields is exactly the right compensation and makes the tool callable in one shot. Remaining gap is the absence of company scoping context (companyId override) and not-found behavior, but for a straightforward read-by-id tool this is close to complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both uuid and companyId are already documented. The description adds only that lookup is 'by UUID' and says nothing about the companyId override ('uses active company if not set'), so it does not extend the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), resource ('product'), identifier ('by UUID'), and enumerates the returned statistics. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling products_list, which returns collections rather than one product's detail with usage aggregates.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a specific product by UUID' suggests it follows a list call or that the agent already has a UUID. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of products_list as the discovery path, and no note on when the extra usage statistics matter versus a plain lookup.

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