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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: prices are account-specific and SKUs differ by region (inch vs cm), which tells the agent why the country parameter changes the result set. Pagination is left to 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?

Two dense sentences plus the endpoint, front-loaded with what the tool returns. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title.

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 does describe the return shape (variants with option values and account price). The remaining gap is sibling differentiation against gooten_list_print_ready_variants, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in structured fields, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only the general notion that country affects SKU variant and currency affects price, without new syntax or format detail.

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 ('orderable variants (SKUs) of a catalog product'), and adds that the result is scoped to a destination country with option values and account price. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling gooten_list_print_ready_variants.

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 implied by the scope ('for a destination country'), and the schema points to gooten_list_products for product_id and gooten_list_currencies for currency. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus gooten_list_print_ready_variants, the obvious confusion risk.

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