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

The description explicitly states 'read-only', aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict the idempotent or destructive hints. The description also clarifies that it returns live compatible choices rather than making changes, fully transparent about behavior.

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 description is two sentences: one for purpose and usage, one for behavioral rules and output. It is concise, directly informative, and free of extraneous content.

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?

The description mentions the output (live compatible choices, missing selections, clarification) and the context of use, but does not detail the output schema. However, the provided context indicates an output schema exists, and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role without seeing it.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, each explaining that they should only be included when the buyer explicitly stated the attribute. This aligns with the tool's core instruction and adds semantic clarity beyond the enum values alone.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to qualify partial, exploratory, or ambiguous Homebridge fire-pit requests by returning compatible Shopify choices, missing selections, and clarification questions. This distinguishes it from configuration tools like configure_homebridge_fire_pit.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'for every partial, exploratory, or ambiguous request' and 'before exact configuration', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context implies it is used prior to configure_homebridge_fire_pit.

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