get_variations

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: max 10 variations per call, pagination via variationPage (1–10), empty results for non-variant products, and explicit instructions to avoid pasting raw output and to ask before using HTML formats. These are critical behaviors not captured by the annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured: a terse core statement covering purpose, pagination, and variant requirement, followed by a clearly-labelled PRESENTATION GUIDANCE block. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 12-parameter tool, the description addresses the most critical usage points: pagination, variant requirement, and output format selection. It leverages rich schema descriptions and readOnly annotations effectively, though it doesn't detail the return payload structure (no output schema), which is partially mitigated by the format guidance.

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 67%, so the description doesn't need to compensate fully. It enriches key parameters: variationPage (1–10 pagination), format (default to markdown/json, HTML only when explicitly requested), and the notion of a sensible default set for resources. It doesn't describe merchant/condition/languagesOfPreference, but those are self-explanatory via enums and naming.

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 states 'List colour/size/style variations of a parent ASIN' — a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_items or get_browse_nodes. It also adds scope details (max 10 per call, pagination, empty result for non-variant products), which further clarifies the tool's exact function.

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 clear context for use (pass parent ASIN of a product with variants) and a clear exclusion (non-variant products return empty result). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is distinct enough that the agent can infer when to choose this tool. The presentation guidance also specifies when to use markdown/json vs HTML formats, which aids correct usage.

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