Variants List

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the required 'read_products' scope, the pinned API version 2025-03, and the concrete response envelope with pagination fields.

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 compact lines, each with a distinct purpose: intent, endpoint, authorization, return shape. Nothing is repeated and the essential purpose is first, so an agent can stop reading after line one if that is all it needs.

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 usefully documents the return envelope, and it covers auth scope and API version for an open-world REST-backed tool. The only minor gap is that it does not restate pagination defaults or the fields-trimming option, though the schema covers those.

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 the schema already documents pagination, filtering, field selection, and response_format for all ten parameters. The description only surfaces product_id implicitly through the path and adds no meaning beyond schema wording, which is the baseline case.

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 ('List variants of a product'), which cleanly separates it from tiendanube_variants_get, _create, _update, and _batch_* siblings. It does not explicitly name the nearest look-alike (tiendanube_price_tables_variants_list), so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 listing intent is implied clearly enough that an agent will pick this over variants_get when it needs a collection. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the price-table variants sibling that also lists variants, leaving scope boundaries to inference.

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