List product variants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: variants are ordered by rank, and prices are integers in the smallest currency unit and live on variants rather than on the product. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The primary action, ordering, and included fields are front-loaded, and the price-unit clarification follows naturally.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states the essential returned content (variants, options, prices, inventory), the ordering, and the price unit. Combined with full parameter documentation and read-only annotations, this is largely sufficient; adding explicit pagination behavior would make it fully complete.

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 store_id, product_id, and page are already documented. The description does not add much parameter-specific detail beyond reaffirming that the target is a product's variants and explaining how prices are represented, which is more relevant to the response than to the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a product's variants') and adds a distinctive ordering assertion ('ordered by rank') plus the included fields. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling ecommerce tools such as ecommerce_listProductsV1 and ecommerce_createAProductVariantV1.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool—when the agent needs a product's variants—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. There is no reference to related tools like ecommerce_listProductsV1 for finding product IDs or ecommerce_updateProductVariantsInBatchV1 for edits.

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