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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default field set and the underlying HTTP endpoint, which is useful context but does not go beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries purpose, the `fields` semantics, and defaults, followed by the endpoint. No waste.

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?

No output schema exists, but the default field list gives the agent a good sense of what is returned, and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps only, such as whether non-default fields can be requested beyond the named defaults.

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 50%: variant_id is documented in the schema, but `fields` is not. The description compensates by explaining `fields` holds 'the metrics named' and enumerating the default list, adding real meaning beyond the schema's bare pattern/maxLength.

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 (variant) with scope: 'One variant by its Inventory Planner id'. The singular framing distinguishes it implicitly from list_variants, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 'One variant by its Inventory Planner id' — fetch a single record when you have its id, rather than list_variants. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative.

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