voog_ecommerce_api_read

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it's a GET passthrough and supports specific query parameters ('include', 'language_code'), providing useful behavioral context beyond the 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 purpose and method. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous words.

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 passthrough tool with full param schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, method, supported params, and read-only behavior. No output schema needed.

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 parameters. The description only re-emphasizes the path format and optional params, adding no new semantic information.

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 it is a 'Read-only Ecommerce v1 API passthrough' that forwards GET requests, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like voog_ecommerce_api_call (write) and voog_admin_api_read (admin API).

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 marks the tool as read-only and mentions MCP hosts may skip confirmation, guiding when to use. It does not explicitly list alternatives but the read-only nature contrasts with write siblings.

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