Get Configurable Children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific underlying table (catalog_product_super_link) and clarifies the scope of returned data (children only), which complements annotations without contradicting them. No side effects or auth details are needed given the read-only hint.

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 concise sentences with zero fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the important caveat (does not return super attributes) is stated immediately, followed by the routing instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with a complete output schema, annotations covering safety, and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description succinctly explains what the tool does and what it excludes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters (sku, profile, magentoRoot) with helpful context (e.g., 'Use find_product_by_sku instead of guessing EAV table joins'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Returns), resource (simple product children), and mechanism (via catalog_product_super_link). Explicitly distinguishes from what it does not return (super attributes) and names the sibling tool to use instead, making it unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states the negative case ('Does NOT return super attributes') and directly recommends the alternative (`execute_select_query` on `catalog_product_super_attribute`). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance beyond the generic purpose.

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