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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the concrete endpoint (GET /v1/variants.json) and the returned field set, which is useful, but it says nothing about result caps, pagination behavior, or the meaning of 'stock settings' that isn't already in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, followed by the filter options and the endpoint. The raw endpoint path adds little for an agent but costs only a clause; nothing else is padding.

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, the description takes on the job of enumerating return fields, and it does so. Pagination is handled in the schema via limit/offset and the 'next_offset' hint, so the remaining gap is the undocumented 'expand' parameter rather than any structural omission.

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 description names four filter dimensions (SKU code, barcode, description, product id), which supplies meaning for 'barcode' and 'product_id' that the schema leaves completely undocumented. It does not address 'expand', 'state', or the pagination params, but those carry schema descriptions, so coverage at 63% is adequately compensated.

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 and resource ('List product variants, the sellable SKUs') and immediately enumerates what a variant carries (description, SKU code, barcode, stock settings, product link), which distinguishes it from bsale_list_products (product level) and bsale_get_variant (single record). An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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 says how to narrow results ('Search by SKU code, barcode, description or product id'), implying this is the lookup tool for finding a variant when you don't know its id. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with bsale_list_products or bsale_get_variant, and gives no when-not guidance, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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