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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds a critical behavioral constraint beyond them: there is no sorting, results come back in catalogue order, and paging through the whole catalogue must not be attempted. That is exactly the kind of operational context structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the categoryIds workflow, then the limitation and the recommended agent phrasing. It is on the longer side and repeats the sorting limitation across two sentences, but every sentence carries actionable content rather than filler.

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 four-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, filtering, and the sorting limitation. It does not describe pagination behavior (page/pageSize) or the return shape, a minor gap given the read-only profile.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates search and categoryIds semantics that the schema already documents ('Ids come from get_categories' appears verbatim in the schema), adding no format, default, or boundary detail beyond it.

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 ('List products in the merchant's catalogue') and distinguishes itself from the adjacent get_categories tool by noting it 'does not return products itself.' The example questions ('what products do I have', 'how much is X') make the scope unambiguous without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes usage: pass categoryIds for category questions, take ids from get_categories, and it names a hard limitation plus the alternatives that do work (search by name or SKU, filter by category, ask the merchant to narrow down). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all covered.

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