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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by specifying the shape of returned records (first sentence, verification date, guide URL) and that named products indicate which product check answers for them. It stops short of noting result limits or pagination, which is the remaining gap for a list operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the parameter guidance, with no filler. The second sentence is dense but each clause contributes new information about search behavior.

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the definition covers purpose, return contents, and search semantics well enough to invoke correctly. Minor omissions are result-volume behavior and an explicit pointer to the sibling check tools.

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 query parameter is already documented with examples, so the baseline would be 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema lacks: query searches product names, aliases, and named products, and named products resolve to a specific product check.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the products CanWeShip checks') and even characterizes each result (first sentence of its answer, verification date, guide URL). It does not explicitly contrast itself with check_product or get_product_guidance, so the agent must infer that this is the browsing/listing entry point rather than the per-product check.

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 second sentence explains what passing query does and gives concrete examples, which implies the browsing use case. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-check_product guidance, no statement that omitting query lists everything, and no exclusions, leaving the sibling routing to inference.

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