run_shopify_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real operational trait – '5 point per returned record' – which is valuable cost/pricing context. However, it omits auth requirements, error behavior for a missing/invalid handle, and whether the lookup is cached or rate-limited, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 operation and followed by the returned-field inventory and cost note. No filler; the field enumeration is dense but earned since there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (variants, pricing, SKU, barcode, availability, stock). The absence of usage routing and error semantics is the only real gap for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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% and both parameters (product handle/URL, store domain) are fully documented in the schema, so a 3 baseline applies. The description restates 'by store domain and handle' but adds no format nuances beyond what the schema already conveys.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get one Shopify product by store domain and handle', and it enumerates the returned shape (brand, type, tags, images, options, variants with price/SKU/barcode/availability/stock). The word 'one' implicitly separates it from search-style siblings like run_shopify_products_search, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so full sibling differentiation is not achieved.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives mentioned. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether to use this single-product lookup or run_shopify_products_search / run_shopify_collections_products for a given query.

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