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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the error envelope shape (`{ ok: false, error }`) and a non-retry recovery procedure — behavioral detail an agent could not infer from structured fields. It stops short of describing the success payload (currency, pagination, how disabled or publication-type filtering affects results).

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, purpose front-loaded, with the error-handling clause clearly separated as conditional guidance. The second sentence is long but every clause carries actionable instruction (explain concisely, ask for help, don't blindly retry).

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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the return subject (products and prices) and failure behavior. It is still incomplete on the two undocumented optional filters and on what a successful result contains, which matters because filtering directly changes the answer an agent reports to the user.

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 only 50%: context and llm_model are heavily documented, while includeDisabled and publicationType have no descriptions anywhere. The description mentions neither of these filters, so it does not compensate for the gap — notably it never states the default for includeDisabled or what ARTICLE_NOFOLLOW means in terms of returned products.

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?

"Get all available content products and their prices" gives a specific verb (get) and resource (content products + prices), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as browse-marketplace or get-cart, which an agent could plausibly choose for similar catalog-pricing needs.

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 says what the tool returns but never states when to prefer it over browse-marketplace, get-cart, or get-order. The only guidance given is failure recovery, not tool selection or prerequisites (e.g. whether a project context is required for prices to resolve).

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