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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Mirrors GET' only confirms read-only behavior. It does not add useful behavioral context such as pagination, authentication requirements, or response implications, but it also does not contradict the 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first names the action and resource, the second maps it to the actual API endpoint. Every word contributes value and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Combined with the full input schema, informative annotations, and output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for invocation. It lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling mutations and does not mention pagination or return-value caveats, but these are secondary given the structured metadata.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the nuance around business_id. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'List' and the specific resource, 'a business's agent product catalog,' and reinforces it with 'Mirrors GET /api/v1/products.' This read-only retrieval framing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling upsert_product mutation tool and other list tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. Given many sibling list_* and upsert_* tools, an agent has no stated criteria for choosing this tool over alternatives such as upsert_product, though the read-only wording implies retrieval.

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