List commercial GenieLocker inference SKUs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable context about 'lifecycle-verified' and 'currently eligible for purchase,' implying the catalog is dynamic and curated. It also clarifies the commercial inventory scope beyond what annotations convey.

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, no redundancy, front-loaded with the key purpose. Every word contributes: 'Read only' reinforces safety, 'lifecycle-verified' and 'eligible for purchase' define scope, and the exclusion sentence removes ambiguity without extra length.

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?

This is a simple parameterless list tool. The description fully explains what is and isn't included, and annotations cover safety and volatility. The sibling tools for recipes and pricing complete the context, so no important behavior is left undisclosed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. It provides semantic context about the output (eligible SKUs) which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'lifecycle-verified SKUs that are currently eligible for purchase' with a specific verb (read/list) and resource (commercial GenieLocker inference SKUs). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding designed/benchmarked recipes, which aligns with the genie_recipes sibling.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need commercial, purchasable SKUs, not recipes. It explicitly states recipes are not represented, providing a clear exclusion. It doesn't name alternative tools directly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate from siblings.

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