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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about the content (Stripe-verified prices, billing terms, delivery, live availability), which is useful but does not disclose response format or any edge cases. Since annotations carry the safety burden, this is acceptable.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key content. Every word adds value, and the most important information ('Everything an agent can buy') appears first. No fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the entity (products), the source (Black Label Bots), and the included attributes (prices, billing, delivery, availability). It doesn't specify the response format, but that's not critical for such a simple tool. Slightly more detail on how results are structured would push it to 5.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. The description correctly omits parameter details because none exist. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 clearly states what the tool returns: everything an agent can buy from Black Label Bots, with specific attributes like Stripe-verified prices, billing terms, delivery, and availability. The verb 'list' is implied by 'Everything an agent can buy', which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_checkout and list_services, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 description implies when to use this tool (to see available products) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Siblings like list_services exist, but no routing guidance is provided. Context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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