slam_variants_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns variant details plus parent product info, which is useful. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no match is found. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds return details, and the third specifies parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return info but misses behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or error handling. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at return structure, but it does mention 'variant details plus parent product info,' which helps somewhat.

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 (sku, barcode, limit, offset) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'Provide sku, barcode, or both,' which slightly reinforces parameter usage but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Look up variants') and resource ('by exact SKU or barcode'), specifying it returns variant details plus parent product info. It distinguishes from siblings like 'slam_variants_list' (which likely lists all variants) and 'slam_variants_get' (which might fetch by ID), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 usage by stating 'Provide sku, barcode, or both,' suggesting when to use this tool (for exact SKU/barcode lookups). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'slam_variants_list' for broader searches, leaving some ambiguity.

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