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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the REST path and the expand behavior, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids or what the response body contains.

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?

Three terse clauses, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the expand hint, then the endpoint. Nothing is redundant.

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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers identity and one optional behavior, but leaves the allowable expand vocabulary and the returned variant fields unexplained, which is the main thing an agent still needs.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: it gives expand=[product] as an example but the schema permits an array of up to 8 entries matching ^[a-z_]{1,40}$, and no other valid expand values are listed. variant_id's type and constraints (positive integer) are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one variant/SKU) scoped by id, which cleanly separates it from bsale_list_variants. It also names the endpoint, though it never explicitly references the sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals single-record retrieval versus listing, and the expand hint suggests when to request embeddings. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus bsale_list_variants or bsale_get_product.

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