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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the operation returns (attributes, options, MOQ, quantity step) and how the output connects to get_quote determination. However, it does not describe response formatting, pagination, or potential errors, though these are less critical for a simple read operation.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver the core action first and then explain the critical sequencing relationship. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the input, the output contents, and the dependent sibling tool. There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by listing returned elements, though the exact response shape is not specified.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter with a clear description of mpn and its source. The tool description adds little beyond that, matching the baseline for fully described schema parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource: a product's configurable attributes, options, minimum order quantity, and quantity step. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_quote and search_products.

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 instructs the agent to call this before get_quote, explaining that the attribute and option IDs returned are what get_quote expects. It also implicitly ties mpn acquisition to search_products, giving clear sequencing guidance.

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