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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context beyond them: newest-first ordering, exact payload contents, account-wide scope, and that the call is free. It does not mention result volume, pagination, or truncation limits on large accounts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; ordering and payload are stated before the trailing cost note, and every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 input params and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the four payload sections. It is nearly complete for a read-only lister; the missing piece is scale behaviour (pagination or result caps) for accounts with many products.

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 there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on return content, which is the more useful place for a no-arg tool.

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 and resource ('Lists the account's products') and enumerates what comes back (image sets, category recipe, facts, missingFacts). The resource name alone separates it from list_brand_kits, list_folders, list_packs, and the create/edit/delete/move_product mutations, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to enumerate the account's products. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. for a single product, or when a filtered listing is needed), and the 'Free' tag is the only cost-related steer versus credit-consuming siblings like generate_image_set.

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