Get Product Attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: the 'store scope fallback' mechanism and the limitation to a fixed attribute subset. This gives the agent a clearer picture of runtime behavior without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and attribute list, then the alternative tool reference. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant detail. Excellent structure for an agent to quickly parse.

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 an output schema present (returns are documented), annotations covering safety, and the description specifying scope and limitations, nothing essential is missing. An agent has all the information needed to decide when to call and what to expect.

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 (sku, profile, store_id, magentoRoot) is already documented. The description adds no param-level semantics beyond what the schema provides; the attribute list is output behavior, not parameter guidance. Per the baseline rule, a 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') and resource ('common EAV attributes') with an explicit list of attributes (name, price, status, visibility, url_key) and scope ('store scope fallback'). It also names the sibling get_eav_attribute to differentiate, making it clear this is not the catch-all attribute tool.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool and what to use instead: 'Does NOT return all attributes — use get_eav_attribute + execute_select_query for custom attributes.' The schema further reinforces usage by advising find_product_by_sku for looking up SKUs. No ambiguity remains.

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