Get a seller's available filters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is fully captured. The description adds the scoping detail that results reflect only IDs 'that actually occur in one seller's inventory,' which helps set expectations, but it doesn't disclose response internals or upstream behavior. With the annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides modest added context beyond the structured data.

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 compact sentences do all the work: the first states the exact output, the second explains when to use it. No wasted words.

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, two-parameter, read-only operation with comprehensive annotations, the description is complete: it states what it returns, why you'd use it, and its scope. Absence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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 both sellerId and verbose are documented in the schema. The description adds no param-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Return the sets of ids that actually occur in one seller's inventory' and enumerates the filter types (attribute values, categories, brands, sizes, conditions). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools by emphasizing seller-specific, actually-occurring values rather than global facets or suggestions.

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 second sentence provides direct guidance: 'Use it to understand a seller's assortment before filtering their catalog.' This gives clear context for when to invoke it, though it stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly contrasting with siblings like oskelly_describe_filters or oskelly_search_facets.

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