Kits Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the required auth scope, the API version, and the endpoint, which matter for a read against a versioned API. It also discloses that the payload includes composing products/variants — useful since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing pagination of components or error behavior for a non-kit id.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the verb and what is returned, then credentials and version metadata. The HTTP line partially restates the tool's nature but is defensible mapping info for a versioned REST API.

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 single-id read with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, auth scope, and rough return shape, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior (component list size, invalid/non-kit id) that a caller might want.

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%, with 'id', 'fields', and the 'response_format' enum all documented in the schema, so the description need not compensate. It adds nothing about the parameters — no guidance on which fields are valid for 'fields' on a kit, which would have been the one genuinely useful addition.

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 and disambiguates the domain term ("Kit/Combo product and the products/variants composing it"), so the agent knows this returns a bundle plus its component items rather than a plain product. It doesn't explicitly contrast with tiendanube_products_get or tiendanube_variants_get, which are the nearest siblings, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name, and "Required scope: read_products" supplies a real prerequisite the agent can check. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no pointer to products_get or variants_get for the case where the agent actually wants a plain product; the choice is left to inference.

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