Variants Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the required OAuth scope 'read_products' and the API version '2025-03', which matter for auth and compatibility failure modes.

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 tight lines, action front-loaded ahead of endpoint/scope/version metadata, with no filler. The template-style metadata lines are marginally redundant but each carries operational value.

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 simple single-record getter with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs – endpoint, scope, and API version. Only the absence of sibling routing guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 every parameter including 'fields' and 'response_format' is already documented in the schema. The description only surfaces the path parameters in the HTTP line and adds no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get one variant') and pins the HTTP endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from tiendanube_variants_list by the singular target. It never names the sibling explicitly, but the singular/plural split is inferable.

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?

The presence of required product_id and id plus the 'Get one' wording implies usage for fetching a single known variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to alternatives like tiendanube_variants_list.

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