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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: results must be paged via offset, and returned IDs should be reused rather than guessed.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core instruction ('find the user's saved products') leads, followed by constraints.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately covers usage, ID handling, and pagination, though it says nothing about result size or ordering.

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 0% and the only parameter is offset. The phrase 'Page with offset' explains the parameter's purpose (pagination) but adds no detail on bounds, defaults, or page size beyond what the schema's minimum/maximum/default already state.

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: find/list the user's saved products. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_product or search_approved_facts, but the 'saved products' scope is clear enough to identify the resource.

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 concrete when-to-use context ('before answering or editing') and an explicit behavioral rule ('use the returned ID; do not guess products'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is not a 5.

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