Audit Variant Customs Coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the closing 'Read-only — it never writes' is largely redundant. However, the description usefully discloses the return contents (totals, distinct HS codes with variant counts, list of missing variants) and the business consequence of missing data (labels won't generate), which adds real context beyond the 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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the return shape, then the usage routing in three tight sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what is returned (totals, distinct HS code counts, missing-variant list), which is what an agent needs to chain into a backfill. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing, though pagination/scale behavior of the returned list is left implicit.

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%, so both parameters (limit, includeVariants) are fully documented in the schema, including the important nuance that totals always cover the whole catalogue. The description adds nothing about these parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (report/audit) and resource (variant customs data), and defines what 'missing customs data' means concretely (HS/HTS code and country of origin). An agent can distinguish this from sibling variant tools like shopify_get_variant_locations or shopify_bulk_update_variants without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the use case — 'aim a backfill before running shopify_bulk_update_variants' — naming the downstream sibling tool and the condition that selects it. The agent knows both when to call this and what to call next.

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