product_get_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the pre-publish inspection framing but says nothing about caching, freshness, or completeness of the schema, so it adds only modest context beyond annotations.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the subject and the required action front-loaded before the workflow advice.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be described, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameters in an otherwise complete pre-publish helper.

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 0% for four parameters. The description only implies category_id ("for a category") and vaguely hints at include_all ("allowed options"), leaving language, account_key, and include_all's effect undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get the publish schema for a category") and enumerates the returned content: fillable fields, types, required flags, allowed options. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling category_get_attributes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Inspect this before publishing" gives a clear workflow trigger that ties the tool to product_publish. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., category_get_attributes vs this), so it is context without disambiguation.

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