Get variant category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the required scope (edit_products) and notes 'no local effect approval required,' which is useful context about auth requirements. However it doesn't describe return format, error behavior, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Three short clauses: purpose, native endpoint/scope, read-only safety note. Extremely dense, front-loaded, and every clause adds distinct information with zero waste.

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 single-resource GET with a fully documented schema and four annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It adds the scope requirement, which is valuable for auth. It lacks output format info, but no output schema exists and reads are relatively predictable.

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 three parameters (account, product_id, variant_category_id) with patterns and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Get variant category') and even cites the underlying native endpoint GET /products/:product_id/variant_categories/:id, which disambiguates it from siblings like list_variant_categories or get_variant. It's clear but the resource is fairly self-explanatory from the name, so it doesn't reach the discrimination level of a 5.

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 a read of a single variant category via the native GET endpoint, but it never states when to use this vs. list_variant_categories or get_variant. Usage context is only implied, not spelled out with alternatives or exclusions.

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