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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: archived products are silently excluded, and an empty result means 'no products registered' rather than 'no recalls found' — a meaningful trap for an agent. It adds no ordering, pagination or rate-limit context, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, no padding, with the scope constraint front-loaded. The parenthetical exclusion is efficient; the empty-list caveat is slightly tangential to the tool's stated purpose but earns its place as a misinterpretation guard.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions and the empty-result edge case. Ordering of returned products and pagination behavior beyond 'limit' are unaddressed, which keeps it from a 5.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in-schema with range and default. The description adds no additional meaning about limit, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource and its scope precisely: 'this company's registered products' with 'archived ones left out'. Combined with the name/title the verb is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate from siblings like import_products or create_product, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied (call this to see the product catalogue that recall matching operates on), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives named. The 'empty list' note clarifies interpretation rather than steering tool selection.

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