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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: batch limit of 100, exact matching, case insensitivity, and the specific fields returned. This contextual enrichment is valuable and consistent with read-only behavior.

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 single, information-dense sentence without filler. The key capability ('exact search') is front-loaded, followed by constraints and return fields. Every word adds value, achieving high conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential expectations: input constraints (up to 100, case insensitive), matching behavior (exact), and output fields (variant_id, product, price). Missing details like pagination or error formats are minor given the batch cap and read-only nature. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully explain the single `skus` parameter. It does: lists of SKUs, up to 100, case insensitive, and the exact-match semantics. It also explains what the result will include, giving the agent a clear understanding of input and output. While it doesn't detail SKU format, it sufficiently compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool performs an exact search for variants by SKUs, and explicitly lists the returned fields (variant_id, product, price). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products (likely fuzzy) and get_product (single item). The resource and operation are specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'exact search' implies this is for precise batch lookups, contrasting with broader search tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling list includes search_products, which suggests an alternative, but no direct guidance is given. Context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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