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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. The claim 'Returns up to 50 per call' essentially restates the limit maximum already present in the schema; it adds little beyond that, and no auth, pagination, or side-effect information is provided. No contradiction exists.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete examples, and then the pagination limit. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential actions, filter hints, and maximum returned items. It leaves sorting options and the response structure implicit, but for the tool's low complexity this is acceptable and not a significant gap.

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?

Only 50% of parameters have schema descriptions (search and enrichmentStatus). The description mentions 'optional filters' generically without elaborating on sortBy meanings or enrichmentStatus values beyond the schema enums. Since the schema leaves half the parameters undocumented and the description doesn't compensate, a score below baseline is warranted.

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 clearly states the action (list), resource (products), scope (merchant's catalog), and optional filters. The example queries ('products that haven't been enriched yet', 'products with lowest scores') make the intent unmistakable and naturally differentiate it from get_product, which retrieves a single product.

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?

Concrete example use cases are given ('show me products that haven't been enriched yet' or 'find products with the lowest scores'), which signal when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_product for single-product lookups, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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