get_variation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the included fields and the fields param, but does not discuss return format, error handling, or additional behavioral details. This matches the calibration baseline where annotations partially cover transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. It efficiently communicates purpose and a key usage tip.

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 single-resource getter with complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It covers what the tool returns and how to limit fields, leaving no obvious gaps for an AI to correctly select and invoke it.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'fields' parameter's purpose ('request only needed fields') but adds no additional semantic distinction beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Get full details of a single variation') and names key content fields (price, stock, weight, attributes), distinguishing it from list_variations (which lists many) and create/update variation tools. It clearly targets a single resource by ID.

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 'a single variation' implies use when one specific variation is needed, contrasting with list_variations for multiple. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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