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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the description is free to add the non-obvious bits: results are ordered newest first and include products created through the website, and the listing is account-scoped. Pagination behavior beyond the limit cap is not discussed, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 short sentences with no padding, but the first is a bare noun phrase rather than a sentence, and the closing 'Carries `account`, as `list_brands` does.' is cryptic — it never explains what 'carries account' means for the caller.

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 simple three-parameter, zero-required list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, scope and the natural next call. Only the unexplained 'account' clause leaves a small gap.

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% and the parameter descriptions already explain limit, query and brand_id, including the newest-first ordering. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, 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?

Identifies the resource precisely ('the account's products') and adds ordering and inclusion scope ('newest first, including ones made on the website'). The verb is only implied by the name, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_brands, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 a concrete use case and the follow-up step: 'Use it to find a product_id you don't have, then `get_product`.' It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., when to use list_brands instead), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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