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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: no side effects, required Authorization header, soft-deleted exclusion, inclusion of edit_url, and the fact that inactive drafts can be activated via that URL. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

Every sentence contributes: scope, use cases, output fields, optional filtering, read-only behavior, and auth requirement are all covered in a dense but easily parseable paragraph. The core definition is front-loaded, and there is no 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?

Given the read-only annotation, the existing output schema, and only two optional parameters, the description is complete. It covers authentication, exclusions, state semantics, and the practical recovery scenario for lost product IDs, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 schema already documents both limit and state. The description reinforces that state is optional and that 'inactive' corresponds to products.create drafts, but it does not add meaningful parameter detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline expectation.

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 ('Returns'), a specific resource (the caller's own listings), and an explicit scope ('EVERY state' including inactive, pending moderation, rejected, closed), while also noting what is excluded (soft-deleted listings). This clearly distinguishes it from public listing search and from products.get.

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 explicit use cases: finding a draft created via products.create when the product_id is unknown, and reviewing what the seller currently has listed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the intended contexts are clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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