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

The description discloses non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: it states that requested.qty is always 1 regardless of the line content, that the result includes variant_id for the cart, price or a 'need to choose variant' mark, and other suitable products. With annotations covering the safety profile, this adds useful operational context. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but that is minor.

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 sentences, each with a distinct job: what the tool does, the critical qty caveat, and what the result contains. It is front-loaded and free of repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers input format, a non-obvious behavioral caveat (qty=1), and the shape of the returned data, including the handoff to build_cart. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden. It explains that the single 'text' parameter expects one line per position, with either an article number or a name, and that quantities are not parsed from lines. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions and tells the agent exactly what to supply.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'parse a specification or estimate' and 'verify against the catalog' — and it clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like build_cart and search_products by explaining the input format (one line per position) and referencing build_cart as the follow-up. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without inspecting 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?

It explains the input expectation (text, one line per position — SKU or name) and directs the agent to pass quantity separately to build_cart because quantities are not extracted. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare alternatives beyond build_cart, but it provides clear context for its use.

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