selection_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('the read to make before changing'), implying no side effects. It also discloses what data is returned (sku, title, price, link) and contrasts with sibling reads. It doesn't explicitly state 'read-only', but the context strongly implies it, so a small deduction is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose and contents; the second provides the usage context and differentiation from siblings. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and an output schema (which carries return details), the description fully covers why and when to use it, what it returns, and how it differs from related tools. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, uuid, is already documented in the schema as 'The selection, from list_selections()[].uuid.' The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (holds) and resource (products of a selection), enumerates the fields returned (sku, title, price, card link), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools list_selections() and get_selection() which only provide a count. An agent can immediately tell this is the detail read for a selection.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before changing the contents of a selection. It names the alternatives (list_selections, get_selection) and explains why they are insufficient (only a count), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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