get_inventory_variant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond the duplicate handling. No contradictions, but no additional depth on side effects or rate limits.

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, no filler. Every sentence adds value and is well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core retrieval logic and identifies disambiguation strategy. However, it omits any mention of the 'category' parameter and does not describe the response format or error handling, though an output schema exists. Incomplete but adequate for a simple read operation.

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 describes all three parameters as 'a string that will be trimmed', offering no meaning. The description clarifies that 'variant' can be an ID, name, or SKU, and 'product' disambiguates duplicates. However, 'category' is not explained, leaving a gap despite high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single inventory variant using three specific identifiers (ID, exact variant name, or exact SKU), distinguishing it from list and create tools. It also addresses the edge case of duplicate names/SKUs.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use different identifiers, especially with duplicate names/SKUs (pass product or use variant ID). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like list_inventory_variants for multiple results.

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