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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape (count, one-liner, list of {id, name, description, url}) and noting the absence of timestamps and internal flags. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, so 4 rather than 5.

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 sentences: purpose first, return contents second, usage/anti-usage third. Every sentence earns its place and the negative guidance is placed last where it will not obscure the primary purpose.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by describing return contents and by clarifying the implicit scope mechanism. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to document. The description usefully explains that scoping comes implicitly from the request Scope's app_id, which is context the empty schema cannot convey.

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+resource with scope: 'List the products/apps owned by the request scope's user.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_product_context, list_agents, and list_campaigns. An agent knows exactly what this retrieves without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit positive triggers ('product inventory or explicit product-switch/disambiguation questions') and an explicit negative exclusion ('do not call this just to discover which product to use for product-aware actions'), backed by the reason (app_id already in Scope). This is textbook routing guidance.

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