Get Inventory Levels for Variant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the exact fields returned (available, on_hand, committed, incoming), which matters acutely because there is no output schema. It stops short of pagination or rate-limit behavior, keeping it just below a 5.

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, both front-loaded: the capability first, the routing advice second. Zero filler, and the field enumeration does real work rather than padding.

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 listing the returned quantities, and it handles sibling disambiguation for a 50-tool namespace. Error behavior and location-scoping mechanics (e.g., whether all locations always appear) are left unstated, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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% and the single variantId parameter is documented in the schema with a GID example. The description adds nothing about parameter format, though the sibling comparison implicitly clarifies that this tool needs a variant ID rather than a SKU. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource (inventory quantities per location for a variant) and enumerates the exact quantities returned. It explicitly differentiates itself from the closest sibling, shopify_get_variant_locations, so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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 names the preferred alternative and the conditions that select it: that tool accepts a SKU and also reveals locations NOT stocking the variant. This is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-that signal, not vague context.

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