get-product-variants-detailed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does establish this is a read-style fetch of an already-identified product and discloses that omitting 'fields' returns the full field set (larger payload). It says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination beyond the 'first' cap, rate limits, or error behavior when productId is invalid.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the one behavioral note that matters (payload reduction via 'fields'). No filler or repetition.

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 read-only, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and how to trim the payload. Minor gaps remain: no mention of whether results are paginated or what happens past the 100-variant cap, and 'weight'/'tax code' only reach the caller through the inventoryItem field, which is not stated.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the enum of selectable fields and the 1-100 range on 'first'. The description only restates that field selection shrinks the response, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('variant fields for a product') and enumerates the field categories returned (pricing, inventory, barcode, selected options, metafields, image). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby read siblings like get-product-by-id or get-inventory-items, so an agent must infer that this is the variant-level detail fetch.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Get all variant fields' plus a note that 'fields' reduces response size, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get-product-by-id / get-inventory-levels, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent can infer the use case but is given no routing guidance.

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