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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description usefully adds that descriptions are truncated in list output — a real output trait not in the annotations. It also discloses data provenance (Shopify/Dutchie/manual), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the resource definition is front-loaded, the filter semantics follow, and the alternative plus read-only note are packed into the tail. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema verbatim.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of the return shape, and it handles the most important case (truncated descriptions). It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits pagination expectations and what happens at the limit boundary.

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 60% (site, search, status documented; limit/offset not). The description compensates meaningfully by defining what active, hidden and archived actually mean in this product model ('used in articles', 'kept but never used', 'deleted'), which goes beyond the enum labels in the schema. It adds no semantics for limit/offset or search.

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 resource (the site's product catalogue) and its scope: which statuses it returns, where the data comes from, and what articles use it for. It also names the sibling tool it is not (get_product) and the condition that selects it, so the agent can route without opening either 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 clear use context: filter by status with the meaning of each value, and use get_product when a full description is needed. It does not state exclusions (e.g. use search/list_products vs. get_product_sync_status for sync issues), so it stops short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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