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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that products missing the sort value sort last and that it never infers specs. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the primary use case and parameter roles, the second covers edge-case behavior and limitations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema, the description states it returns 'provenanced product records' and explains handling of missing sort values. It covers the main behavioral aspects, though it could optionally mention the exact return fields or pagination. Given the complexity and 100% parameter coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds behavior (e.g., default sortBy='priceUsd', descending default false, and the effect of missing sort values) that enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses specific verbs ('filter', 'rank') and resources ('products in a category'), and explicitly addresses common queries like 'best <category> under $N' and 'which <category> has the most <spec>'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_products (text search) and compare_products (comparison) by focusing on ranking with a sort field.

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 states when to use the tool directly (for ranking queries) and includes a limitation ('Never infers a spec it has not verified'). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the sibling tool list provides context, and the description indirectly guides usage by specifying the ranking behavior.

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