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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it's a read operation ('leitura', redundant), lists valid section values, and notes bulk support via plural IDs. No contradictions, but it doesn't go beyond annotations with useful context like response behavior or auth needs.

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 a dense dump of actions and parameters, with the key 'Flattened action: checkout_options' note buried in brackets. It's not front-loaded and contains extraneous information about actions that aren't part of this tool, making it harder for an agent to quickly parse the actual purpose.

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 and a 12-parameter input schema, the description should clarify expected inputs and outputs. It provides some context (sections, bulk support) but omits details on return values, pagination, and which parameters are valid for the flattened checkout_options action. The description is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain parameters. It lists action signatures and section values, and mentions bulk IDs, but leaves many schema properties (name, type, cursor, account, is_hidden, etc.) unexplained. The mapping between the flattened action's parameters (product_id, section) and the full schema is unclear.

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 lists many actions (list, get, subscription_options, checkout_options, offers, etc.) before clarifying that only checkout_options is flattened for this tool, creating ambiguity. It does specify checkout_options(product_id + section), but does not directly state that the tool retrieves checkout options for a product, nor does it distinguish this from the sibling offer_checkout_options tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Bulk support is mentioned, but there's no statement like 'use this for product checkout options, not offer checkout options,' nor any reference to sibling tools such as guru_products_offer_checkout_options. The distinction is only implied through parameter lists.

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