List variant storefront links

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral details: it explains that archived variants are excluded, and it describes the response's coverage envelope (coverage, received, total_count, pages_read) with a mandatory requirement to reflect partial coverage in user-facing answers. It also reveals how the tool joins relative_link_url with b2c_url, providing insight into internal logic that affects output.

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 concise yet information-dense. It front-loads the primary purpose, then efficiently covers the URL joining mechanism, alternatives, filters, exclusions, and the coverage envelope. Each sentence adds essential value, and there is no redundant or filler content. The structure is logical 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, when to use it, alternatives, parameter compatibility, exclusions, and the response's coverage semantics. The only minor omission is exact URL format examples, but that is not necessary for correct invocation. The description leaves no critical gaps for an agent to call the tool properly.

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?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It mentions 'Same filters as list_variants', which is a helpful cross-reference but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. The description adds no new parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: it produces storefront page URLs for variants, ready for integration with CMS/PIM/feed. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming the alternatives (list_variants + get_store) and explaining that this tool replaces both in one call.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it says 'One call instead of list_variants + get_store', clearly indicating when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also notes 'Same filters as list_variants', giving the agent a direct reference for parameter behavior, and mentions that archived variants are excluded by the API, which is a critical filtering condition.

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