Look up REST endpoints and GraphQL operations

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context: the data comes from the official OpenAPI schema and results include path, method, parameters, body, accepted tokens, GraphQL arguments, return type and examples. It does not discuss result limits or ambiguity handling beyond what the schema's 'limit' field implies.

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 resource being looked up and followed by the usage cue. Dense but each clause carries useful content; the long parenthetical listings are slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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 by enumerating what REST and GraphQL lookups return, which is enough for an agent to trust the result shape. It stops short of covering keyword-search behavior or pagination beyond the schema's 'limit' field.

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 coverage is 100% with enums for 'api' and 'method' and examples for 'query'. The description restates the accepted query forms (GraphQL name, REST path, keywords) but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (look up) and precise resource (Adobe Commerce REST endpoints and GraphQL queries/mutations), plus what is returned for each. This clearly separates it from siblings like search-docs or lookup-cli-command.

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?

"Use it when writing integrations or storefront calls" gives a concrete usage context. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it (e.g., versus search-docs), so it falls short of a 5.

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